The Social Value Act could have a huge impact on community wellbeing – but only with genuine local involvement and an imaginative and unfettered approach
Attending a recent workshop on the Public Services (Social Value) Act, I was impressed by the enthusiasm for making it ‘real’ and for using it to make a tangible difference for local communities. The Act, which came into effect in January, requires local authorities and other commissioners of public services to consider how their services can benefit people living in the local community, in particular they must take account of the social impact of contracts before starting the procurement process.
The workshop was one a series organised by the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action, of which I am a trustee. Held in Leeds, it was attended by local authority commissioners and procurement officers as well as voluntary and community sector representatives. The lively discussions showed that some local authorities were further advanced in their implementation of the Act than others. Encouragingly, it was also clear that many were rightly involving their local voluntary and community sector, other service providers, staff, service users and the wider local community in developing their approach. Unfortunately, this was not always the case.
The pursuit of social value, which should include economic, social and environmental value, can only be truly addressed within the wider localist agenda. After all, social value objectives will be different in different places and between different neighbourhoods and communities. Accordingly, they need to be very local – indeed, even ‘micro’ local.
The new Act is hugely important and has the potential to have a major impact on community wellbeing. However, its greatest contribution should be to encourage changes in behaviour. I am not talking about ‘compliance’. Local authorities and other public bodies that adopt the easy and lazy approach of pursuit of social value – driven simply by procurement and imposition of new rules and hurdles (bureaucrats are naturally inclined to such) – will simply fail their communities. Indeed, they will waste a great opportunity and undermine public confidence in local government.
So what are the behavioural changes that could turn the Act into a powerful driver of social, economic and environmental change? Five occur to me:
- harnessing the power and scale of public sector procurement to drive the wider social, economic and environment agendas and not simply to purchase services and goods (the Act specifically does not apply to goods but the same approach can be applied); and moving on from simply price-driven procurement
- involving the local voluntary and community sector, communities, service users, staff and other potential providers in defining local social value objectives; and to determine what is/might be possible
- pushing the boundaries and avoiding feeling constrained by risk-averse procurement rules and officials, and lawyers
- adopting a comprehensive approach, which includes seeking social value throughout supply chains – even those that might include internationally based suppliers
- taking a place-based approach through collaboration with other public sector bodies to adopt a shared approach across local government, the NHS, police and other public agencies
An important learning point from the Leeds workshop was that political leadership is essential. Council leaders and senior Cabinet members, and their equivalent in other public bodies such as police and crime commissioners and government ministers, should commit to using the Act as part of their wider leadership agendas. They should signal to staff and others that this is important and matters. And critically, they should encourage staff to be imaginative and to push the boundaries.
Every public body spends a great deal of money every year on goods and services from the business and social sectors. They also spend money on ‘in-house’ public services. They should always consider how they can maximise the impact and value of this spend, especially in a period of austerity and budget cuts. They should have the means to identify and evaluate social benefits – not in ways that are bureaucratic, mechanistic or burdensome, but rather which encourage innovative and responsive outcomes.
Another message from the workshop was that the voluntary and community sector, and indeed the wider social sector organisations, should not ‘presume’ that everything they do maximises social value. They have to be able to demonstrate their contribution and impact. Social value is not unique to any one sector – the public sector has a strong record but actually the business sector can and does also add social value in the right conditions.
Local authorities and other public bodies will have to decide how much they wish to take into account wider ethical standards from their suppliers and how far they will be comfortable testing providers’ ethical, governance and values given the ambiguity of the law. I hope the government will legislate to enable this to become the norm – surely a key part of developing a responsible capitalism. However, bold public leaders will wish to and can go a long way within the current legal framework.
I am in no doubt that the Public Services Social Value Act has great potential, but fulfilment of this potential will require public sector commissioners, procurers and leaders to be creative, inclusive and, above all, bold.
Traditionally public benefit and the pursuit of social value have been regarded as ‘nice to have’ add-ons to public contracts and public services. I suggest that the real challenge is to move them to a ‘nice to have add on’, to being core.
The NAVCA workshops have demonstrated that the energy and commitment is there – let it flourish and not be stifled by rules and bureaucracy. Let it bring benefits to communities.