"It starts from the premise that those who use a service must be involved in its design. The differences in status and authority between the professionals who run the service and those who use it have to be broken down." So said Hilary Cottam, head of Participle (creator of Suffolk Circle) in The Guardian, 27 June 2010.
"The Axeman Cometh" said the Ipswich Evening Star on July 12 2010: "Which all means that the department facing the biggest shake-up at the county is adult and community services.... With an ageing population and the likelihood of more extremely old and frail people needing help in the years ahead, radical solutions are needed. That is why the county is pressing ahead with the “Suffolk Circle” aimed at co-ordinating local help rather than relying on council support.This is being promoted even though the first such scheme, in Southwark in London, has attracted only a few hundred members. In future the county will be looking far more at families and friends to support those who need help before they fund social care." it went on to warn its readers.
What is the Suffolk Circle?
Suffolk Circle is a Community Interest Company which has been funded with £680,000 over three years by Suffolk County Council after a £100,00 'scoping exercise' to provide support to individuals very similar to Good Neighbour Schemes (GNS) but on a ‘token’ time-banking model.
This model charges the users for the support provided and employs a paid staff - the CEO of the schemes receive a salary of around £45,000 per year - but has promised preventive savings of £761,000 to Suffolk within the first three years and £2.1 million by the end of the fifth year. These savings projections were calculated by its parent company Participle. From the first circle in Southwark, others have also been established in Hammersmith and Fulham, Rochdale, Nottingham and more are in development.
SCC Scrutiny Committee minutes say that based on research undertaken locally; Participle projected that Suffolk Circle will be self sustainable by the end of its third year (February 2014) on the basis of a minimum target of 3,500 Circle members.
Parent company Participle claims it can, "free of charge, develop this business case for you, upon your request. We will then meet with you, and your teams to help you understand how we could develop a Circle in your area, getting all stakeholders on side, and developing the necessary case for its investment. Typically a Circle costs around £200k per year for three years, before it breaks even, with no further revenue funding. Typically this investment will be justified through cost savings made in the first 3 years, with a 6 fold return on investment by the end of year 5, depending on local factors."
A County Council investment of £680,000, over three financial years, was agreed by SCC Cabinet on 25 May 2012 to support the development of the model. By the end of year three, it is planned to roll out across the whole of Suffolk.
Full disclosure: all views here are my own but I am employed to support GNS but I am sure several other organisations meeting the needs of older people like Age UK or WRVS or The Royal British Legion could also claim they could do the same with that money.
The news of such a large investment into an untried model upset the Bury St Edmunds Friendship Centre. Jane Andrews Smith, one of the organisers, told Mark Murphy on BBC Radio Suffolk on 9th March 2011 how they already provided the same benefits.
One can see the attraction of the circle model for statutory bodies; they deal with one agency that won’t require, unless it fails, any further support, which is rather easier than spending the same money on a patchwork of 100-200 separate schemes in order to saturate Suffolk with a network of support. I am not affronted by the circle model but I do question whether a balanced view was taken on the ways to meet need because GNS, by their nature, do not have the capacity to brag about their accomplishments. The investment made by SCC in this model is ten times the cost of establishing over 30 Good Neighbour Schemes (which brought a host of wider outcomes) in Suffolk over the last ten years, where schemes are accessible to more than 60,000 people.
In the last few decades the Voluntary and Community Sector has had to adapt to operating in a competitive marketplace, each chasing a slice of private, public and statutory funding which is competitively tendered in a grant application process. This is very beneficial in that good ideas that actually work get funded and poor ideas or bad practise don't. At least, that's the theory.
A cynic might say, and there are many, that slick expensive presentations get funding over ones made at home and timing is everything. The first applicant that ticks the box when a statutory funder has a target or political imperative to meet (such as to outsource the public sector) will get funded.
I attended a presentation of the circle concept given at an annual LSP forum in November 2010 by Richard Hunt, head of Culture, Sport and Communities at Suffolk County Council, that implied by the slides (prepared by Participle) that good neighbour schemes in Suffolk along with 70 older people had been consulted as case studies in Participle's research though no GNS could subsequently recall that.
At that time I was very surprised that principals of Participle didn't make that presentation - the event is the flagship of local fora - but apologies were made. The Q&A afterwards was rather tense as Mr. Hunt naturally couldn't answer very particular questions those present put to him and promises to forward them to Participle wasn't satisfactory. The consensus from the conversations afterwards was that it was a done deal between Participle and the county and for anyone to make themselves unpopular with Suffolk County Council right then would not be politically wise, as there was widespread uncertainty about everyone's relationship with the county in their 'New Strategic Direction'.
Sir Roger Singleton has just reported to the Panel on the Independence of the Voluntary Sector where charities told the inquiry they felt increasingly unable to challenge policy or speak out because they feared losing contracts or influence. Many were self-censoring because they feared retribution from funders. The report concluded: "overall, we suspect there is an increasing unwillingness to speak truth to power".
I would like it on record that I have an open mind to the circle model, the GNS model cannot suit every situation but I have yet to receive an invitation to a round-table discussion on working with circles for local VCS organisations. The overtures I had mano y mano were akin to a cub reporter asking a bitter hack if they can borrow their address book.
The way that SCC foisted the scheme and the invisible principals of Participle undoubtedly undermined the goodwill of paid and unpaid community activists. Belinda Bell, Suffolk Circle's first CEO, alluded it was professional jealousy but said circles, unlike the detractors, are unique and not need-based. After looking up that charity-speak, I can confirm that Good Neighbour Schemes are not need-based either and I would vehemently disagree most rural people can get a lift to their doctor. If the focus of the business is not preventing more expensive social or medical care, what are SCC paying for? GNS schemes are more inclusive that a scheme aimed at the over 50.
Participle did a good job of selling themselves to the politicians but apparently not to people in networks who could endorse them. Perhaps they thought they don't matter, only the customer matters? Perhaps they were steered away by their handlers in case they got cold feet on sight of the baying mob. I don't offer conspiracy theories but in this vacuum, slick graphics and alternately erudite or cheerful copy written in London gives the impression this is an elitist corporate-political enterprise which is another case of 'we know what's good for you'.
Participle would have won more friends if the principals had come to a few more village halls to convince people their motives come from their heart and not their wallet. Associates have noticed their absence at several community forums lately which Suffolk Circle were listed to attend. These forums are just as much for organisations to listen to each other as to users. It's a pity I haven't met Hilary Cottam. Having read a lot of her work I've come to imagine we're on the same page about a lot of things but I learned something from my dad who taught design; try building what you designed and using what you built before going to market. That she may say is precisely what is being done in Suffolk. Then there is a PR failure here. Circles have been positioned as a solution, not an experiment. Perhaps because the cabinet didn't have the guts to tell the electorate.
Personally I believe we do need innovative ideas in the way society achieves its purpose; that is to mutually meet our needs, and there is a huge legacy of failure and expectation which hampers new initiatives by requiring incremental progress carrying that baggage forward but when I have presented Suffolk Circle as one of a range of options at meetings in communities the reaction has been hostile. People are appalled that a business can make a charge for 'befriending' and it sometimes galvanises focus onto alternative models.
A danger for Participle and the circle idea is that its promise of delivery is used as a tool by a statutory body to divest itself of responsibility because of its political philosophy to demolish the public sector and not their pragmatic approach to redistribution of public resources. I wonder how the extraordinary way the decision was taken by SCC would fare against the Social Value Act (2012) now. If Participle expects users to buy tokens with state benefits and 'Direct Payments', why is that better than making it free to qualified users and the state funding it? Have you seen the nightmare bureaucracy it takes to deliver direct payments, which some say are just a make-work scheme for financial advisers to make a living administrating them for a cut?
Colin Noble, Portfolio Holder for Adult and Community Services on Suffolk County Council since June 2009 wrote on his blog: “in a nutshell, Suffolk has an ageing population and is getting less and less funding from Central Government to deal with it; but we are working on it, with Suffolk’s New Strategic Direction; with Suffolk Flexicare; with Suffolk Circle; with Suffolk’s care providers and the third sector and long-term with all of us here in Suffolk working towards the Bigger Society David Cameron is talking about nationally…”
This new paradigm pits organisations against each other to serve a particular 'need group', attract funding and take the credit for tackling society's problems. Naturally there can be sometimes double-counting of outcomes and in practise, sometimes the delivery doesn't quite match lofty ambitions.
Whilst competition is healthy and creates stimulus, to be healthy it must be overt, such as between football teams. However in the VCS it is often unspoken and can be insidious. Everyone has to put on a face of working in partnership for the public meantime stabbing each other in the back in the boardroom or quietly seething as a newly minted agency, flush with funds, steals the headlines - and so further funding - for something others do better but do not have the resources to crow about it. Competition and 'payment by results' can be a stimulus for bad practises too, consider the failures surrounding Atos or DWP contractors in the £5bn Work Programme. The various channels of statutory funding - by definition subject to political influence - is complicit in this by manipulating the funding streams to meet particular and ever-changing objectives.
To determine the winners and losers we need to keep score but Suffolk Circle's numbers are hard to come by and their metrics are hard to compare. It's as if one grocer sells carrots by weight, another by volume and no one knows the ratio of weight to volume. While numbers for GNS are scant of detail too, this because they are small groups of local volunteers more focussed on helping their neighbours than collecting data about them, and besides they are not responsible to SCC. But sifting through the press cuttings we can only extrapolate a few figures from Suffolk Circle and it troubles me that I cannot find positive references to circles in mainstream or community media and on blogs and forums not written by people connected to Participle.
Where is today's man on the Clapham Omnibus mentioning on a community forum this great scheme he's signed up with to look out for his Gran? I am pleased to read one story of a circle's impact on Stan, while I read many every year about GNS.
Suffolk Circle was launched on 14th February 2011. By 14th February 2012 it announced it had signed up 341 members, it been to around 150 social events and completed over 320 helper jobs.
I'd like to ask then, what does it mean by "been to"? I know it has attended events organised by the Rural Coffee Caravan and other bodies providing information events on a social model. I can't see that Suffolk Circle attending social events is actually delivering anything of value to members except awareness of their own scheme. Isn't this just advertising the scheme to attract members?
The 341 members it attained in the first 12 months is below the membership target Suffolk Circle published. However, the number of members is irrelevant as a metric of impact apart from the numbers of member represents revenue from its £30 joining fee, so we have a picture of its sustainability, whereas GNS cost nothing, there is no 'joining' of them. Gym clubs count on having more members who never go to the gym than those who actually use the gym. The metric that matters is how many members use the scheme. Suffolk Circle expects that each member will spend £99 per year on circle services including membership, or 5.75 hours per year. I would expect, based on GNS usage, there will be something like 90% of members who will not spend any tokens but renew a membership or have it bought for them. Membership attrition so far has been about 1.5%. It was said in the LSP presentation that a key market for the circles is the 'adult child' living at a distance who will buy tokens for their parent/s to use.
To be fair they had to start from zero and growth ought to be exponential as predicted as every member invites a friend or several others to become a member. Their membership targets are: Y1 404, Y2 1630, Y3 3500. To look at the potential of the Suffolk Circle, we could examine the data from the first scheme Participle established in the London borough of Southwark.
In September 2012 Participle said of the Southwark Circle in the Guardian:
"The social outcomes are measurable and the cost savings considerable. In Southwark, for example, we have facilitated 14,600 hours of social activity, reached more than 175,000 people, delivered more than 5,100 hours of support and established more than 170 local partnerships." Here it uses a completely different set of metrics by which it is being measured in Suffolk.
Southwark Circle was founded in May 2009, so counting up to September 2012 is 40 months.
I wonder what they mean by "facilitated"? Looking on their websites, the circles list lots of local events on their calendars and most it seems are not exclusive events, they are just existing events being advertised to their members, in some cases at an additional premium if booked through Suffolk Circle.
40 months is 1220 days, so near as dammit their facilitation is 12 hours of activity per day. What is the form of this facilitation, are they counting signposting people to activity as facilitation? Is this social activity something otherwise unobtainable and so wouldn't happen without them? Were circle the originators and hosts or did they just count the number of their members that attended existing provision? A GNS that hosts a monthly lunch club in a village hall where none exists (as some do) can rightly claim it provided those 2 hours of social activity per month and for the impact it could multiply that by the number of people that attended and the number of volunteers involved, as that is a benefit to them too.
If 20 circle members book a coach trip to see the Sound of Music (2.5 hours in theatre, 2 hours travel) do they claim that as facilitating 20 x 5.5 = 110 hours of social activity? Is it otherwise impossible for those members to have booked this trip with someone else? I would say it could only be fairly claimed as impact if there was no other provision, which in Southwark, in that scenario, is very unlikely.
Similarly I question "reached". What by; advertising? One poster on an escalator at Oxford Street will 'reach' 147,000 people a day.
5100 hours of support. That is 127.5 hours a month.
14,600 hours of activity is 365 hours a month.
Whatever the definition of activity and support, it is 492.5 hours a month in a borough with a population of 288,300 people (2011). For the moment let us set aside that circle schemes are only for older people whereas GNS make no age discrimination, since need doesn't either. The ONS estimates the percentage of population of "pensionable age" in Southwark is 11%, so let me be generous and put it at 30,000 people. If they've reached 175,000 people, isn't that 145,000 more than they needed to saturate their target population in Southwark?
Therefore the activity/support delivered in Southwark to their target population is .00165 hours per person, per month. I'd like to know their definition of 'support', as it alone is an ambiguous word constantly overused in VCS. It can be money, counselling, labour, facilities, signposting and many other actions.
Let me try some comparisons. The population of the market town of Halesworth in Suffolk is around 6000 people. With 19 volunteers, the independent Halesworth Volunteer Centre reported in 2011/12 it travelled 78,709 miles in a year taking people shopping and to hospitals, GP appointments etc., the same sort of support Suffolk Circle members can ask for. The town has a volunteer operated 'Hoppa' bus with conductors that assist vulnerable passengers so the HVC can be said to be serving more people with physical mobility or other issues rather than just meeting demand for transport because no public transport exists.
HVC don't record the number of hours volunteers spend driving and helping people with their shopping but if we assume they travel at a very generous 10 mph with stopping and shopping etc., that would be: annual hours = 7870.9 or monthly = 655.0 and instead of counting just the pensioners - undoubtedly they are the majority of who they serve - and we count the whole population; HVC delivers support at 0.1097 hours per person per month (about six and a half minutes).
If you're not good with zeros (like me) that is 16 compared to a hundred. HVC delivers 565% more support to everybody in Halesworth than the pensioners of Southwark get from their circle. That's just the Community Car Scheme but HVC also gives other personal support which I've not counted. So in terms of numbers, they've already lapped Southwark, climbed the podium and are drinking champagne at the post-race party. It's quite reasonable that HVC outperforms the two GNS examples; it has a paid staff, an office and telephone lines and volunteers are standing by on a regular schedule to respond to calls.
I have a few figures on Good Neighbour Schemes in Suffolk which put in the public domain at their AGMs and so on.
A fairly typical GNS is the parish of Aldringham cum Thorpe which has 700 residents. In 2011 they completed 262 tasks or 21 a month. In a larger village nearby the Wickham Market GNS in 2011 completed 836 tasks, or 70 per month for a population of 2400. Amongst the GNS schemes, this scheme is by far the leader in terms of quantity but the figures show it has parity with others in terms of efficiency in serving population.
"Task" though doesn't quite describe the extent of the work done. Some tasks are a simple visit or a trip to the shops (that is at least 2 hours of support) and across the schemes only 50% of the tasks are for transport but sometimes a call leads to hours of advocacy, which is willingly entered into but often frustrating and despairing as services, such as Patient Transport, are reduced in this time of austerity. Two hours of support from Suffolk Circle would cost you 4 of its tokens, between £20 - £24 depending how you bought them.
Let's be exceedingly generous to Suffolk Circle and say each task represents 1 hour of support.
location pop. served hrs pcm efficiency
Southwark 30,000 492.5 0.0164
Halesworth 6000 655 0.1092
Aldringham 700 21 0.0300
Wickham Market 2400 70 0.0292
If you want that expressed as minutes per population each scheme delivers:
Southwark 56 seconds per person
Halesworth 6.5 minutes
Aldringham 1.8 minutes
Wickham Mkt 1.75 minutes
Whilst we have a huge number of variables and guesses in these figures, and we have not accounted for variation of need, but that isn't as much as people might think, we can plainly see how the GNS model outperforms the circle model in delivering support. The GNS here don't deliver as much as the volunteer centre but you have to consider the HVC and others like it are better funded and has a wider footprint that can encompass other GNS. Most GNS exist where there is no other support and when there is, they provide back-up and flexibility to frontline support.
But this is an exercise to demonstrate the difficulty of measuring claims of effectiveness, not damn somebody by those numbers. Voodoo number-crunching happens in every sector I've worked in; just ask Rio Tinto about its Mozambique coal. It seems everyone uses one metric for bids and another for reports and funders and county councillors just scratch their heads and figure it must be doing some good so vote it through.
Hilary Cottam wrote recently in Soundings 48: "Certainly we can see where we have introduced circles, our members’ visits to GPs have dropped off. They are no longer lonely, and are in better health, due to increased social activity - just one of the unpredicted benefits of this membership service for the over-50s."
Unpredicted eh? So that's not the purpose of the circle scheme and nobody told you that's what happens when you enable people?
At the time of writing this, Suffolk Circle has been going two years. From my conversations with them, I understand it has focussed its development on Bury St Edmunds and surrounding areas where it is based and where there are fewer competing GNS. I welcome this as there is certainly no lack of need in those places so it could be an ideal opportunity for them to show that a circle can be established where GNS haven't, though I haven't tried it with £680,000 to spend.
You may be surprised there is deprivation in Southwold
To be perfectly honest, I don't mind which model is used so long as it works at meeting needs but I do feel that the GNS model, with its inclusiveness and lower costs, run not by professionals but people's neighbours with the users and providers being interchangeable, is at a disadvantage because each is an organic localised scheme without a brand identity or a well heeled company who walk in corridors of power behind it. Incidentally, for the sake of brevity please read this blog for the evidence, the GNS model is not just for meeting social need but is also a platform for local community development. It many instances it has been the catalyst for realising new things or introduced people to volunteering. I would posit even that, to some, it might be a dangerous force, empowering the community and capable of advocacy and political influence. In the one-size fits all provision circles promise and councils want, somebody has to fight the GNS corner because it's foolish to put all the eggs of self-help and community support in one basket.
The greatest strength of the GNS model is the capability for variation and adaptability which, amongst the variety of agencies in the voluntary and community sector, will protect each scheme from obsolescence. In GNS schemes there is no difference between user and provider as they are all neighbours. If need changes, provision changes. Its limits are the resources available which limits circles exactly the same way.
The problem for Participle's model is that it is aims to grow too large and so too inflexible.
The greatest strength of the GNS model is the capability for variation and adaptability which, amongst the variety of agencies in the voluntary and community sector, will protect each scheme from obsolescence. In GNS schemes there is no difference between user and provider as they are all neighbours. If need changes, provision changes. Its limits are the resources available which limits circles exactly the same way.
The problem for Participle's model is that it is aims to grow too large and so too inflexible.
A problem in introducing any new brokerage model is to 'capture' enough providers to meet need and enough need to stimulate provision; the 'critical mass'.
I recall a LETS scheme where I once lived which eventually collapsed because there were too many people offering head massages and watercolour classes and there were no takers for their tokens in exchange for plumbing or gardening.
For some time I have been voluntarily, in the course of everyday contact, encouraging tradespeople to sign-up to a 'Trusted Trader' scheme as this would be good resource GNS can refer their clients to. The reaction from every trader I have approached is "why should I bother, I have enough work" (there is a fee of £100 to register) and the view of some clients is there are names on the list they can't legally fault except they wouldn't recommend them to their friends. Each time I made the suggestion I put my credibility on the line as an endorser. Not surprisingly I've since stopped bothering.
The GNS volunteer doesn't charge the user; they see their gift as an investment in the social capital of their community. The challenge is to ensure the value of that currency. The customers/investors will accept its currency when they own the bank and the bank's model and I don't see where in the circle model the customers own it; they are "involved" in it, just as much as they are involved in deciding what SCC can do with their money.
Another issue I have with the circle model is that it says that the currency of GNS, social capital, is worthless, so people must trade with actual currency for which it takes a cut. Scale is a factor here. Social capital does not hold much value far from home. People don't expect it to be accepted abroad nor do they redeem from outside, at least not at 1:1. Like a bank, circles guarantee their currency will be redeemable forever, so long as they stay in business of course. Social capital is perishable but the way to refresh it is to spend it, keeping it in circulation: monet gratarium reciprocam retributionem (one good turn deserves another) is one of our oldest proverbs.
If a person is prepared to give their time to their neighbour for nothing, then if the means comes along that enables them to charge for it (so they can get back what they put in), then the market in social capital collapses and switches to money. With time-for-money we impose a much more rigid trading platform. Placing a common value of £6 per half hour on helper's time removes the flexibility to set prices and to some extent the commodities traded. If a neighbour's child needs collecting from a dance class next week, I wouldn't expect them to reciprocate as much as if they needed a lift now, but it's just as important that we can forgive those debts when the neighbour's need is greater than ours.
I have encountered scepticism in some communities that helping one's neighbour will be reciprocated, which the circle model overcomes but so does a GNS, but what's missing in the communities where I find that scepticism and the most valuable commodity to society, which only the GNS model builds, is trust. Even the richest, ablest country in the world has to proclaim that its last line of defence and the ultimate guarantor, written on every dollar bill, is their trust in a benign almighty: In God We Trust. Society only works because people trust that other people are inherently honest most of the time (and justice to transgressors will be fair), that work will be rewarded, that provision will be fair and trust that politicians and providers - our servants - act in our best interests. There is a way for both GNS and circles to co-exist but it must be deduced they have no faith in building 'trust' in communities.
I recall a LETS scheme where I once lived which eventually collapsed because there were too many people offering head massages and watercolour classes and there were no takers for their tokens in exchange for plumbing or gardening.
For some time I have been voluntarily, in the course of everyday contact, encouraging tradespeople to sign-up to a 'Trusted Trader' scheme as this would be good resource GNS can refer their clients to. The reaction from every trader I have approached is "why should I bother, I have enough work" (there is a fee of £100 to register) and the view of some clients is there are names on the list they can't legally fault except they wouldn't recommend them to their friends. Each time I made the suggestion I put my credibility on the line as an endorser. Not surprisingly I've since stopped bothering.
The GNS volunteer doesn't charge the user; they see their gift as an investment in the social capital of their community. The challenge is to ensure the value of that currency. The customers/investors will accept its currency when they own the bank and the bank's model and I don't see where in the circle model the customers own it; they are "involved" in it, just as much as they are involved in deciding what SCC can do with their money.
Another issue I have with the circle model is that it says that the currency of GNS, social capital, is worthless, so people must trade with actual currency for which it takes a cut. Scale is a factor here. Social capital does not hold much value far from home. People don't expect it to be accepted abroad nor do they redeem from outside, at least not at 1:1. Like a bank, circles guarantee their currency will be redeemable forever, so long as they stay in business of course. Social capital is perishable but the way to refresh it is to spend it, keeping it in circulation: monet gratarium reciprocam retributionem (one good turn deserves another) is one of our oldest proverbs.
If a person is prepared to give their time to their neighbour for nothing, then if the means comes along that enables them to charge for it (so they can get back what they put in), then the market in social capital collapses and switches to money. With time-for-money we impose a much more rigid trading platform. Placing a common value of £6 per half hour on helper's time removes the flexibility to set prices and to some extent the commodities traded. If a neighbour's child needs collecting from a dance class next week, I wouldn't expect them to reciprocate as much as if they needed a lift now, but it's just as important that we can forgive those debts when the neighbour's need is greater than ours.
I have encountered scepticism in some communities that helping one's neighbour will be reciprocated, which the circle model overcomes but so does a GNS, but what's missing in the communities where I find that scepticism and the most valuable commodity to society, which only the GNS model builds, is trust. Even the richest, ablest country in the world has to proclaim that its last line of defence and the ultimate guarantor, written on every dollar bill, is their trust in a benign almighty: In God We Trust. Society only works because people trust that other people are inherently honest most of the time (and justice to transgressors will be fair), that work will be rewarded, that provision will be fair and trust that politicians and providers - our servants - act in our best interests. There is a way for both GNS and circles to co-exist but it must be deduced they have no faith in building 'trust' in communities.
I don't know the population of the places Suffolk Circle is established in now, it would be unfair to count the whole of Suffolk so let us apply the ratios used in Southwark to Bury and put their target population at 10% so 3500 people. With 320 tasks completed in year 1, its tasks were 26 per month so its efficiency was 0.0074 (26 seconds).
I hope in the following year the new CEO, who took over from the highly experienced 'social entrepreneur' who went to greener pastures after 12 months, has doubled their activity to catch up to Southwark. I notice that Suffolk Circle has since reduced its £30 sign-up fee with a coupon for six months free membership by a code advertised on its Facebook page. This must increase considerably the 3500 subscribers it originally needed to reach break-even then?
Circles lately seem to have dropped references to 'over 50' on their websites though it's there in the SCC briefing documents and older press cuttings. Participle lauds itself for its agile development process but if so, should the guinea pig pay for the costly experiments on it?
If we want to count impact, then I think the GNS has many other models beat hands down; the preventative impact of every GNS in Suffolk on reducing missed medical appointments (£120 each) falls prevention (£12,600 each) and supporting independent living (£36,000 per year) is in the order of hundreds of thousands of pounds. I find the impact on softer outcomes of keeping people connected, building social capital in communities, offering hope and the reassurance there is a safety net is incalculable, so I don't expect to hear Suffolk Circle making any claims for their effectiveness at that either.
If we were to consider that each GNS only costs a few hundred pounds per year (and they are not directly funded by SCC) only because of the requirement of public liability insurance and CRB checks, which the government could do more to reduce; we would see that the support GNS delivers would be tremendous value for money over the circle model for the county council if they were to fund GNS directly. And, being free to the user but with several controls against exploitation, GNS are incredible value for money to the entire population of Suffolk.
Please note that all I am saying here is there are some questions I would like answered. It would be interesting to have the data and the resources to make a like-for-like comparison across all the models of support being delivered in Suffolk. I suggest an independent body looks into that as soon as possible. I am sure Participle will hear of my queries and will respond in time.
P.S. After digging deep into the Suffolk County Council website (where you have to know the date of any meeting to find a document rather than the topic) it is reported that as of November 2012 Suffolk Circle membership is 1,115 and the membership trajectory is on target to meet the end of Y2 forecast of 1,630 members. On November 22 2012, Suffolk Circle tweeted they signed up 114 members on the Mildenhall Estate in one week. In December it announced by its Facebook page that it was offering free 6 month trial memberships for a limited period.
Again, I make the point it's not the number of members that matters but the kind of support given that really counts and let's hear what preventive value it has. As evidenced by its promise, Participle already has the social scientists and the IT infrastructure and the data on its members to provide the answers.
If my apologies are not apparent enough, let me say again I don't mean to be harsh but at the end of the day someone's going to decide if I should keep my job based on real numbers about real people.
ADDENDUM
On March 14th 2014 it was announced that Suffolk Circle would cease operations. By then it had only signed up 2000 members.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-26585520
Lib-Dem county councillor Caroline Page was particularly scathing in her condemnation of the waste of £680,000 of taxpayers money by the cabinet of Suffolk County Council, who had originally excluded the regular council from debating the subject.
In response to a story reporting the demise of the other flagship Southwark Circle a commentator on the Guardian website has grasped the issues;
Suffolkperson
0
Your writer refers to the Circle scheme as a 'totemic project,' (why?) and seems eager to conflate provision of services, any services, for over-50s, with a long-term solution to the problem of care for the elderly. Perhaps your journalist should have considered getting out their calculator and seeing how long it would take for a fifty-year old to become a 'frail elderly.'
The other thing you have not mentioned at all, but which is very germane to the article, is the range of existing services being provided by existing local groups in advance of the various Circles being established. These were providing services to the same people as the Circle groups aimed to reach and have lost out to the tune of the however many hundred thousands that were pumped in to ‘prime’ each individual Circle project. Suffolk County Council spent £100,000 on an advance 'scoping exercise' which seemingly failed to identify the existence of any of these organisations. And yet they, rather than 'the recession' were likely to prove a stumbling block to Circle’s declared intention of becoming quickly self funding.
I am astonished at the gap between rhetoric and reality and the amount of sloppy thinking indulged in by everybody in this whole sorry saga. It seems to me that you, Hilary Cottam, and the various councils involved have a narrative of 'social enterprise' you wish to justify and therefore pay no attention to the facts.
