Collaborative commissioning:

We received questions about:

• how governments can work together in a collaborative commissioning model to reduce siloes
• who needs to be involved in setting collaborative commissioning models up
• how we create momentum for change, and what PLACE’s role in this is.

If done well, collaborative commissioning can help to reduce siloes, with the regional commissioner working with local, state and federal governments to pool funding. This pooled funding would then be used to commission services aligned with community need, reducing funding complexity and streamlining reporting requirements.

There are examples of commissioners pooling funding from different government departments but this isn’t ideal.  A better approach is for departments to identify shared priorities, such as education, health or employment, and how they can co-invest through pooled funding or engaging a commissioner together to develop a tailored program or range of programs.  A coordinated approach is essential to driving real change and governments need to ensure they are showing up together.

Who needs to be involved in the process is very dependent on the context of what is being commissioned.  At a minimum, a commissioner and community can work together to co-design a potential program but can also include service providers, governments and other funders (such as philanthropy).  A key consideration for those involved is how you share power and minimise power imbalances to ensure that community voice is at the heart of design and decision-making.

PLACE’s vision is that communities share decision-making with government and other stakeholders to accelerate progress on the issues that matter most to them.  In the context of commissioning, we see that there is great opportunity for community-led approaches to complex issues that have proven difficult to shift using traditional purchasing models.  The webinar is one step in rethinking funding models to better meet community needs. We will continue working to amplify the impact of community-led and place-based initiatives.

We received questions about:

• how funding cycles need to change to support a collaborative, community-led approach
• building in funding flexibility, particularly when funding is limited.

On our Listening Tour we consistently heard from communities that short, fragmented funding cycles are a barrier to place-based work. Short funding cycles not only disrupt good work but also take resources away from delivery. Many collaborative commissioning models work in shorter-term funding cycles which impacts how long a program may operate.  Longer funding periods would be expected to enhance the impact of programs.

The key to ensuring that funding is used effectively is community input into service design and selection, and ongoing transparency and accountability to communities. This is integral to making sure that funding is being used on programs and services that align with community need and are going to have a positive effect on outcomes.

Community involvement in the co-design process needs to be built on a foundation of trust, and part of this is sharing key program data at the outset, including how much funding is available, how long funding has been allocated for, and current service providers already operating in their local area. Services can then be co-designed with community within existing budget and resource constraints. If decisions about what is needed and what will be funded are made in partnership with communities, services are much more likely to match local needs and achieve the desired outcomes.

We received questions about:

• enabling community participation in the process
• preventing collaboration fatigue.

There’s a range of ways community can be brought into a collaborative commissioning model, and it’s important to understand the key differences between commissioning and traditional grants or procurement processes. Commissioning involves planning, co-designing, and funding services in partnership with communities, providers, and potentially multiple funders. The goal is to align resources and decisions around shared outcomes, reduce fragmentation and build trust.

Communities can be involved in a range of ways.  This includes:

• involvement in or leading co-design processes
• being part of the selection process for services
• being part of the governance of what is being delivered locally and having a continuing role in shaping and refining how services are working.

Strong examples build community in from the start and work with communities to support their continuing participation.

Collaborative commissioning has the potential to reduce collaboration fatigue by better coordinating community engagement. In the current model, individual government agencies and service providers undertake community consultation separately, often on similar topics with limited processes to support information sharing. Communities have to share their challenges and priorities many times with different people, often with a significant time investment.

With a regional commissioner in place, the regional commissioner can coordinate community involvement in co-design for a broad suite of programs and services, not just programs and services provided by one agency. Community governance models can also ensure a consistent voice in monitoring and evaluating progress.

We received questions about:

• what kinds of organisations can fill the role of regional commissioner
• the role of Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations (ACCOs)
• the things government, providers and communities need to do to make this approach more common.

The role of a regional commissioner could be filled by many different organisations, but there are a few key features that make regional commissioners effective:

• strong relationships with the community and service providers
• high levels of trust within the community
• a degree of impartiality to enable them to work with a broad range of organisations and people.

In many communities across Australia, these organisations already exist: they could be Primary Health Networks (PHNs), ACCOs or backbone organisations.  There are a range of issues that need to be considered and managed in these processes, including conflicts of interest and impartiality given existing funding flows.  The right fit in one location, may not be the same in another.

In terms of embedding collaborative commissioning into practice, it’s important to note that this approach is already happening across Australia, particularly in the health sector. The work ahead involves building on these foundations and broadening the practice. In its interim report on Delivering Quality Care for Effectively the Productivity Commission outlined several key steps the government can take to embed collaborative commissioning, including removing barriers to pooling funding, making funding more flexible and ensuring regional commissioners are sufficiently resourced to undertake comprehensive governance. Some additional steps that will support collaborative commissioning include:

• moving to long-term (5 or more years) and flexible funding cycles
• implement shared governance models
• support outcomes-focused reporting and relational ways of working and contracting.

Service providers need to shift from a competitive mindset to one of collaboration. The current purchaser-provider model encourages competition, but collaborative commissioning encourages collaboration and integration. This does, however, require a different way of working and sufficient time and resources to build relationships.

Many communities already have existing governance structures that can be leveraged to support collaborative commissioning and are already actively engaged in consultation and co-design of services. Communities should be supported to build capacity when required, in a way that matches the local context.

We received questions about:

• how to reduce the burden of data collection and simplify reporting for service providers and communities

• what measurement and evaluation systems are needed to support collaborative commissioning.

One of the benefits of collaborative commissioning for service providers and communities is streamlined reporting. Instead of having to report to multiple funders, service providers report to the regional commissioner, who then consolidates and reports to funders.  

Communities should also be directly involved in monitoring and evaluation processes, either via community governance boards or other mechanisms as part of shared decision-making. This enables community members to have a say in how programs and services are evaluated, what data needs to be considered and provide input into how programs can be adapted to better match community needs as things evolve.  It can also provide important context for performance and understanding where performance can be improved and how.  

PLACE will continue working with communities, service providers, commissioners and governments to explore collaborative commissioning and how it can work to place community at the centre of decision-making.   An ongoing learning approach is critical to shifting the system to better support place-base initiatives, and we want to understand what works, how the system needs to shift to better support communities and help build that expertise across the country.