LBWF is quietly paying consultancy Newton c. £5m. to help it make savings in services for those local residents most in need

From the beginning of the year, LBWF has been working with a big consultancy, Newton Consulting Ltd., on a project to deliver ‘change across its organisation, with a focus on…  Housing and Homelessness and Adult Social Care’.

This is part of a new LBWF emphasis on ‘demand management’, that is, wherever feasible, remodelling its key statutory responsibilities in a way that produces tangible savings. 

Newton’s appeal is that it claims to have a uniquely meticulous approach to this issue, as well as a string of contracts with other local authorities, from Labour’s Lewisham Council to Reform’s Leicester County Council. 

Turning to how much this is costing residents, LBWF has already paid Newton £715,000 up front for a three month ‘diagnostic exercise’, and in addition has set aside £4m. for later implementation.

Given LBWF’s well documented financial problems, this expenditure is surprising, so it’s not unreasonable to ask whether it represents value for money. 

In passing, it is curious that LBWF appointed Newton by executive decision, rather than via tendering, and that no supporting papers ever have been made public.

But that said, is LBWF’s appointment of Newton broadly a good or bad thing?

At a general level, it is disappointing to find that, despite employing more and more highly paid officers, LBWF does not have the wherewithal to carry out such work itself. 

On the other hand, it is clear that on occasion outsiders do spot issues and possibilities that insiders have missed. Famously, the great American boxer Sugar Ray Robinson changed his stance for the better after advice from a ‘little old lady’ who passed her day at his gym.

Additionally, Newton’s way of working seems, at least in its telling, impressive. Traditional approaches are subjected to extensive scrutiny.  Individual services are then broken down into their constituent parts and reassembled for the better. Throughout, staff working for the client are taken along for the ride, and trained to take over. And there is clarity about monitoring, with detailed financial data reported at every stage.

Moreover, Newton emphasises, it is fundamentally concerned, not just with savings, but also with making life better for service users by giving them greater independence.

Thus, in a recent statement of its values and beliefs, Newton asserts that ‘the best outcome that can be achieved for an individual is one which enables them to live as independently as possible, whilst remaining safe from harm’, and explains:

‘This is achieved by taking a strengths-based, or asset-based approach. This approach focuses on what an individual cando without formal social care support, by using the assets they have themselves (their own, personal strengths), in their informal network (such as their family or friends) and their local community. It is only once this has been considered that formal care and support is used to support an individual with what they cannot do’ [emphases in original].

And, it adds, ‘Promoting wellbeing, promoting independence, and supporting independence is not only best for individuals – it is also a cost-effective way of meeting the needs of the population, as more independent individuals typically require less care’.

Taken at face value these observations may appear sensible, even enlightened.

But whether Newton delivers in practice is a different matter, and one that so far is difficult to assess.

Much of the discussion about impact in places like Lewisham has dealt with the concerns of professionals:  how delivery has changed, the exact amount of savings made, and so on.

By contrast, there seems to have been less interest in a dimension that surely should be an important part of any credible assessment – the views of service users. 

A telling illustration of this imbalance occurred when officers presented Lewisham’s Healthier Communities Select Committee with a final report on the alleged Newton inspired transformation of the council’s adult social care service.

For the officers, the important points were savings and performance in meeting targets.

But for councillors, this was clearly insufficient, and when considering future actions, they pointedly asked for information about ‘resident feedback’, particularly in cases where it was negative.

The upshot was that officers agreed to provide the requested information, but only via a later ‘informal’ (i.e. unminuted) briefing.

So by contracting Newton, LBWF is taking a risk, and in a high stakes game.

For sure, there are many future unknowns.

Will consultants, often young and ambitious university graduates making their way in what is a notoriously cut throat industry, really understand the needs of those who may well be disabled, poor, or marginalised?

Will the twin objectives of finding savings and promoting independence always be aligned?

Will family and friends, let alone ‘their local community’ (a nebulous concept at best), be capable of providing an alternative source of good quality care, and moreover providing it week in, week out?

In short, the Newton contract is certainly one that needs careful watching.