BEST Procurement- Social enterprises in public procurement markets

By Tim Curtis, Research Fellow, Sustainable Development Research Centre. October 2005

Public procurement and social enterprises

Background As part of its review of the public sectori, New Labour has attempted to find a ‘Third Way’ii to deliver health and social care services in the UK iii, characterized as ‘governance’iv: ‘selforganising, inter-organisational networks’ which promise locally responsive services with the state acting as an ‘enabler’ rather than a direct provider of servicesv. Part of the rhetoric of this approach is epitomized by the emphasis New Labour places on ‘partnership’ working – Jupp found the term ‘partnership’ used over 6,000 times in Parliament during 1999 as compared to 38 times in 1989vi. The discourse of partnership appears to be becoming a ubiquitous feature of the welfare landscape such that it has become a hegemonic termvii. Part of this ecology of ‘third’ provision is the (reviii)-emergence of the social enterprise populating a specific niche in the capitalist economy. Jo Barraketi’six literature review reports that in 1999, the Social Exclusion Unit Policy Action Team released a report, Enterprise and Social Exclusion, which identified a range of obstacles to the stimulation of entrepreneurial activity in socially excluded areas. This report led to the establishment of the national Phoenix Fund, which is specifically designed to contribute to community capacity building by encouraging entrepreneurship – through social and commercial enterprise - in socially excluded communities. In 2000, the Social Investment Taskforce – an initiative of the UK Social Investment Forum in partnership with the New Economics Foundation and the Development Trusts Association – made a number of recommendations to government, including the expansion of the Phoenix Fund, establishment of a community investment tax credit, matched government contributions to community development venture funds, and the support of community development financial initiativesx. In 2002, social enterprise was explicitly linked to the UK public policy agenda, with the establishment of the sector’s peak body, the Social Enterprise Coalition, and the release of a three year action plan, Social Enterprise: A Strategy for Success by the Department of Trade and Industryxi. A social enterprise unit was established within DTI to advance the Government’s key objectives of: • • • creation of an enabling environment for social enterprise making social enterprises better businesses establishing the value of social enterprisexii

There is now clear governmental support for social enterprises and in particular in their role in providing goods and services to the public sector, as an additional role of achieving their specific social outcomes and in order to develop long term self sufficiency (from public or private grant giving). The Small Business Servicexiii states: “The Government is committed to promoting greater understanding of social enterprises among public sector procurers and to increasing expertise on procurement within social enterpreise [sic]”. Public procurement opportunities for social enterprises are most likely to arise in the delivery of public services. Social enterprises are deemed to be close to their customers and do not exist to maximise profits for disinterested external shareholders. 2

Public procurement and social enterprises The government view is that social enterprises are often well placed to be able to deliver good quality, cost-effective public services. In addition, social enterprises can demonstrate the worth of innovative new practices to increase the participation of staff and users in service delivery. The only policy instruments that threatens the hegemony of social enterprises as a third way of public goods and service provision are EU procurement rules and the implementation of the Gershon report Gershon efficiencies The Gershon report is a government initiative to look at ways in which councils can make the best use of the resources available for the provision of public services. Among the areas it tackles are information and communications technology services, staff reform and the sharing of best practice. The aim of the reforms are to reduce administration and other costs and place more investment into frontline services. The treasury estimate that current guidelines will save councils the equivalent to £20b a year by 2007-08 or 2.5% savings for every council department per yearxiv. These targets have produced a whole swathe of extra public spending in order to identify and achieve 2.5% efficiency savings. The Regional Centre of Excellence for the East Midlandsxv has a major programme of work, providing 53 reports and toolkits on the subjects of procurement and local government efficiency. The way this work has entered into the mythology of local government procurement has been to require a 2.5% cut in spending either by doing less or buying less, much despite the protestations of those helping the “sector to realise efficiencies and improve performance by marshalling and publishing best practice, challenging with best practice, and supporting improvement (targeted on those councils in most need)xvi”. The challenge for the social enterprise supplychain, therefore, is to provide more for less, whereas it would prefer to be in the situation of demonstrating wider benefits and indicating that it can do more than other suppliers for the same or slightly more, helping local authorities achieve cross-budget line savings. EU Procurement The internal market legislation of the European Union obliges public authorities to adhere to formally agreed and transparent procedures when spending public money. In general, thresholds apply so that the larger the financial value of a contract to be let, the stricter the rules which are to be applied. These rules are derived from the EU’s Public Procurement directives, which were last revised in December 2003. Unfortunately, if they are applied without regard to their knock-on effects, the result can be counter-productive. A ‘Strengthening the Social Economy’ Equal paperxvii reviews five procurement rule reasons constraining the use of social enterprises in the delivery of public goods and services. The first reason for this is that public authorities often wish to buy not a product but a service. While the quality of a material product can usually be measured at the time it is delivered, services are delivered over an extended period of time.


Public procurement and social enterprises Their quality therefore needs to be monitored continuously, and the sustainability of the benefits created needs to be taken into account. Secondly, the measures of value-for-money and quality need to be multi-dimensional. If monetary cost is taken as the only criterion of value, then the tendency will be to try to achieve economies of scale by specifying large and uniform contract conditions. Thus the quality benefits of smaller-scale provision, tailored to users’ needs, risk being lost. This approach also discriminates against SMEs, often at a cost to the local economy. There is also a time dimension. In social services, quality depends crucially on the nature of the relationships between those providing and those using the service. These relationships are often built up over time. The authority cannot therefore “chop and change” suppliers in social services. If it allocates contracts purely on cost criteria, it will encourage bidders to compete on cost alone, and will thus prevent any of them building up the high quality that depends on an investment of time. A more general barrier is the culture of procurement officials, which tends to be averse to risk rather than willing to manage risk. This leads to the continuation of existing arrangements and slows innovation. This might be an oversimplification. Certainly risk aversion is the symptom of the issue, but it is more likely that corporate governance culture within local authorities is based on the concept of zero risk procurement, rather than risk sharing to achieve better value. It must also be noted that a significant proportion of individual purchases, commissions and procurement events within local authorities are not handled by ‘procurement professionals’ but rather section heads or other commissioning officers. Finally, the procedures involved in bidding for public sector contracts are relatively complicated. To achieve a level playing field and allow innovative solutions to surface, there is therefore a need to train social enterprise managers in these procedures. The SBS are thus forced to admit that “There is currently a lack of expertise in many parts of the social enterprise sector about public procurement practices and processes, and, in some cases, lack of recognition of the contracting opportunities that local authorities and other public sector procurers may offer. The Government believes social enterprise need assistance to develop their capacity to bid for contracts and better access to information about forthcoming tender opportunities, as well as guidance on how to express their financial and social competitiveness in their bidsxviii” BEST procurement In recognition of the issues set out above the overall aim of the BEST Procurement Development Partnership is to increase the conversion rate between public expenditure and social and environmental improvement within the East Midlands Region. This will be achieved by demonstrating improved value for public money, establishing social enterprises as key delivery agents for this goal. The BEST Procurement Development Partnership is focused on improving the prevailing conditions in the labour market in order to achieve long term structural change that increases equality in the labour market. Disadvantage in the labour 4

Public procurement and social enterprises market is created not only by the relative situation of the "disadvantaged" individuals but also by the value ascribed by the labour market to those individuals and their situation and willingness to include them. The DP intends to help social enterprises and voluntary and community sector organisations to access procurement opportunities made available by the public sector, to help the public sector purchase better labour market outcomes through its mainstream procurement practices and to help social enterprises to provide high quality employment opportunities for people from BME communities, women, people with disabilities and people aged over 50 year. The main partners are public sector bodies (local authorities and health sector bodies), charities and academic institutions working on issues of sustainable development, social enterprises and social enterprise support agencies and strategic regional and national agencies. The DP is focused on achieving a change in practice within the East Midlands Region that other parts of the country can learn from, that provides evidence of use to national policy makers and ultimately that informs European policy. The DP’s aim is to increase the conversion rate between public expenditure and labour market equality within the East Midlands Region. To do this it is necessary to improve value for public money in targeted areas and establish the social economy, particularly social enterprises and voluntary and community sector organisations, as key players in achieving this goal. The East Midlands public procurement marketplace Identifying the size of the local authority procurement market in the East Midlands is extraordinarily difficult. It was hoped that the initial market research would yield detailed analysis of local authority and health trust spend patterns which would enable the BEST Procurement programme to identify a new or significant opportunity for social enterprises but it became clear in discussions with local authorities and, through links with other organisations, the health care trusts, it transpired that, in the East Midlands at least, detailed knowledge within public authorities of actual spend patterns was extremely limited. Many public authorities are only recently investigating their own spend patterns, establishing that the public expenditure is so decentralised that, below a major function level, the public authority retains little or no capability for central analysis of data. Extensive literature searches did not yield any more useful information apart from a market survey derived from national statistics All the documentation reviewed that encourages SMEs or SE’s to compete for public procurement opportunities do not discuss the amount of expenditure in detail – restricting the prediction to a national figure of £40bn.. There are no regional studies available, although one may be available from the East Midland Centre of Procurement Excellence (publication date unknown). In the absence of aggregate data for the East Midlands, two of the partner local authorities have provided internal data which indicates the level and breakdown of the spend patterns.


Public procurement and social enterprises One local authority (A) reports a spend of £331m. The top 10 spending categories account for £226m (28% of the total spend) and include those indicates in Figure 1. Of this spend, it is possible to assume that two categories present a significant opportunity for SE’s in the type of service provision and the ability to distinguish between SEs and other suppliers – voluntary services and grants which represent a spend of £28m.
Figure 1 Top 10 Categories of spend by Council A

*UNCAT= uncategorised The list of categories was reviewed with a view to identifying those spend categories that, in the first analysis, present a significant opportunity for SE’s in the type of service provision and the ability to distinguish between SEs and other suppliers. These are listed in Figure 2. These opportunities represent a maximum of £80m in one local authority alone. Very little else is known about these categories, so the analysis is retricted to the common sense understanding of what types of purchasing might be assigned to these categories. In other words, one has to assume that laundry is the use of mobile laundering services, that, for an SE, might, at least, be staffed with disadvantaged labour with perhaps other social benefits being realised (such as training and education). Items such as ‘not known’ and ‘various fees’ indicate where gaps in budgets are taken up by miscellaneous expenditure and which might present an ad hoc opportunity for SE’s. Certainly, these account for £7m, which is a significant opportunity for a entrepreneurial SE. It would be expected that a relatively small proportion of the ‘market share’ could be taken up by SE’s as issues such as inertia, reputation and risk will reduce the adoption of more innovative (i.e. blended value) procurement opportunities. If one was to assume a target of 20% of the market share, then the procurement market for entrepreneurial SEs in this one council location could be valued at £16m.


Public procurement and social enterprises
Figure 2 Significant opportunities for Social Enterprises from one local authority

The above data represent estimated based on a number of assumptions, but represent the best data available at the time. With active public authority partners in Stage II of the BEST Procurement programme, it is planned that better, and more specific data will be developed specifically for the project. In addition, it was not fully appreciated at the start of the programme, that identifying an area of public authority spend will only be useful with a detailed understanding of services already being provided by social enterprises, their capacity to deliver services at the moment and their capacity to expand and change to meet new opportunities. Again, such data was not readily available, necessitating a detailed survey, firstly to identify social enterprises in the East Midlands (as distinct from voluntary and community activities that do not intend to provide services or good n return for income) and subsequently to ask detailed questions regarding their capacity. This survey is ongoing, and will yield the information required. In addition, as social enterprises join the BEST Procurement DP as beneficiaries, extensive engagement with the management teams of the enterprises will allow market opportunities to be identified, based on their existing capacity and ambitions, linked to market information being provided by the public authority partners. Qualitative Market analysis The quantitative analysis of public procurement has provided some data, although not very robust, indicating the current and potential future spend patterns of local authorities. To develop a richer understanding of the market place for social enterprises an analysis of the procurement and community strategies of local 7

Public procurement and social enterprises authorities was undertaken, to establish whether it was possible to identify some key areas in which the BEST Procurement DP might focus. The procurement and community strategy documents were downloaded from Nottinghamshire Council and other Council websites across the East Midlands on 14/02/05 and analysed by two methods: • A proprietary document analysis tool -Compare It! which is a full-featured visual file comparison and merging tool that allows the user to compare and work with different versions of the same text file. A colour-coded side-by-side comparison makes it easy to understand the differences between two files at a glance. The software also provides statistics on the commonly used words and words that are unique to each document • A qualitative analysis to identify words and phrases that are relevant to the BEST Procurement market model and this represent a structured market analysis for Social Enterprises Although the Nottinghamshire County Council’s two documents are the most closely related of all the local authorities in the East Midlands, they do not generally share the same terminology, being only 13% similar. This is primarily because each document is aimed at two different issues, although the procurement strategy could be assumed to be ‘embedded’ in the community strategy as it lays out the means by which the local authority’s allocated budgets will be procured – i.e. the conditions under which Social Enterprises, when providing services mentioned in the Community Strategy, would compete with other service providers.
Table 1 Comparison of Nottinghamshire Procurement and Community strategies Description Amount Common words 553 Unique words in left file 1346 Unique words in right file 1077 Similarity (by keywords), % 13

In comparison, two community strategies compared with one another (Table 2) show a higher rate of correlation (17%), but comparing two procurement strategies shows that there is less (8%) correlation between the two documents, indicating that there are significant differences in approach, making meaningful statistical analysis difficult but also indicating the complexities of market analysis with a number of different local authorities whose needs and priorities are significantly different.
Table 2 Comparison of Derbyshire County and Northampton Borough Community strategies Description Amount Common words 1054 Unique words in left file 1677 Unique words in right file 1372 Similarity (by keywords), % 17

To compare against a national benchmark, the Nottinghamshire procurement strategy, when compared to the ODPM National Strategy for Procurement, yields a 19% similarity (Table 3).


Public procurement and social enterprises
Table 3 Comparison of Nottinghamshire procurement against national benchmark Description Amount Common words 1000 Unique words in left file 950 Unique words in right file 1688 Similarity (by keywords), % 19

These tests indicate that the community and procurement strategies are relatively closely related, when compared to the relationship between the national and local procurement strategies. Exploring more deeply, Table 4 shows the frequency of keywords in the documents which indicate the priorities and pressures on the local authorities expressed in the strategies. This is not a perfect representation of the drivers, but the above analysis gives an approximation of the concerns uppermost in the drafters and consultees for each paper.
Table 4 Keywords in Procurement and Community Strategies
Procurement Strategy Keyword procurement performance Best Value Plan process Strategic management contract staff cost objectives goods corporate competition Authority terms suppliers e-procurement contractors arrangements customer works practice money equality tendering Performance legal Frequency 115 38 38 32 26 25 24 21 19 17 17 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 12 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 Community Strategy Keyword county young crime transport rates population youth rural natural county’s accidents towns residents partners housing Forum children agencies recreation Partnership community facilities engagement build age Youth wildlife sharing schools Frequency 39 20 17 13 12 11 9 9 9 9 9 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5

The analysis of the community and procurement strategies for local authorities in the East Midlands has indicated that there is little or no apparent connectivity between the two sets of documents. Preliminary work undertaken by Forum for the Future on health sector procurement has indicated a similar lack of connectivity xix. Procurement in the public authorities and the NHS in the East Midlands is highly fragmented and complex and although the principles of the NHS Good Corporate Citizen initiative and local authority Community Strategies are beginning to rise in importance for key players in procurement processes, at present, more traditional factors - cost, quality, 9

Public procurement and social enterprises after sales service and timeliness -dominate decisions and contracts. Because of this, some procurement decisions continue to generate unwanted externalities. As a result, numerous opportunities for public procurement activities to boost the local economy, strengthen local communities and contribute to environmental protection are missed. The following figure, from preliminary work undertaken by Forum for the Future xx summarizes the current perceived barriers to linking the NHS Good Corporate Citizen initiative to procurement and much the same can be said to be true for local authority procurement in supporting community strategies. Current Barriers to Sustainable Procurement

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
EU tic ali ib ru ti ilit le ies es (P s ( C o su b A S A m c ) ple ont ra xi t c.. y Ot . (s he r N yste m HS ) dr Su iv pp La ers lie c La rs k k in fo no ck wl M G i xe ed CC d de ge m es fi sa nitio ge n P s( NH CT Go la S ck v) Tr in us te tl re ac st ki nt No er e re so st ur ce s lex Co st Pr ac



Always Sometimes Never

The fact that there isn't a significant level of connectivity demonstrates the need for the BEST Procurement Development Partnership. The strategy of the DP is to improve connectivity between labour market issues and procurement so it is important to identify issues within the community strategies of local authorities that can and should be more clearly linked with respect to procurement strategies, and, more importantly, practice. To inform this process, a more qualitative investigation of the two sets of strategies was undertaken. The two sets of community and procurement strategies were analysed to identify phrases (as opposed to key words) that have meaning for a social enterprise. These phrases are recorded in Table 5:
Table 5 Qualitative analysis of community and procurement strategy phrases relevant to social enterprise
Community Strategy Add value Location of business Sustainable communities Community cohesion Young people Procurement Strategy Account whole-life costs Social value Impact on other services Impact on social inclusion Impact of social services

In f


Public procurement and social enterprises
Community Strategy Employment opportunities Most deprived New dwellings Rural traffic wastes Public protection Emergency planning Alcohol and drugs strategies Fire safety Road safety Sports and recreation Natural assets Public transport campaigns litter noise Grass cutting cleanliness Small firm formation Ageing population Special education needs Raise skill levels Access to work Job creation Vulnerable communities Health promotion Managing debt Teenage pregnancy Elderly people Drug and alcohol misuse Support for carers Respite care Sheltered housing Residential homes Local decision-making Active citizenship Portal to services Procurement Strategy Degree of competition Measure performance Impact of skills and knowledge Support strategic direction of Authority Ethical procurement pays dividends Legal, ethical and transparent Environmental and sustainable Local economy Small/medium sized enterprises Equal access to employment Equality of opportunity Local sourcing Local workforce New markets Social enterprises Economic disadvantage Community benefit clauses Demonstrating benefits achieved

To a certain extent, these phrases reflect the jargon of the present policy environment. On the other hand, they are a clear indication to a social enterprise of what benefits the local authority will be seeking out of what specific areas of development, regardless of actual current spend. Thus they represent clear market development opportunities. Although it is not possible, at this stage, to make links between these areas of community concern and actual current public expenditure and thus representative of an existing market for social enterprises, the issues suggested in Table 5 can form the basis of a coherent potential market for social enterprise activity. Clearly, local authorities have developed community strategies, and as expenditure comes more into line with these strategies, opportunities for social enterprises will increase. BEST Procurement Demand side programme The BEST Procurement programme is designed to intervene in the market place between social enterprise suppliers and local authority and health care procurers in order to enhance the maturity of the supplychain. The social enterprise oriented supplyside interventions have been described in detail in a prior paperxxi whereas the activities of the public sector are much less well defined, partly because it was felt by the BEST Procurement Action 1 team that the policies and activities of entire local authorities and Primary Care Trust were less influencable as whole than individual, and more flexible, social enterprises. It was also felt that there was such a significant 11

Public procurement and social enterprises background of policy development, research and toolkit publication at different levels in the demand-side of the market that the local authorities would benefit more from self-defining their activities, providing information and activity oriented towards supporting the social enterprises engaging with BEST Procurement. Nonetheless, the proposed programme of work from the local authorities was designed to cover the following issues: Stage 1 o Undertaking a baseline review of influencable spend o Determining the percentage of influencable spend and the number of contracts who are related to this spend o Identifying numbers of social enterprises that have contracted with the council o Identifying the nature of the contracts and the location of the organisations we contract with. o Looking at management information systems which are able to monitor number of employees, location, ethnicity, gender and disability status of the supplier. • Stage 2 o Consideration of the key issues facing both social enterprises contracting to NCC and other local authorities o The legal context – with specific reference to the use of Community benefit Clauses o Considering how supply chains of existing prime contractors can be opened up to Social Enterprises • Stage 3 o Making the links between the strategic objectives and the procurement outcome explicit o Reviewing the relevant part of the procurement strategy and policies o Implementation of research findings including development of pilot projects within the council o Development /Awareness raising sessions with procurement /commissioning staff on the value or option of social enterprise as a supplier The demand-side of the Development Partnership aims to create a level playing field for social enterprises. Some of this will be achieved through practical change but much of it will involve a significant cultural change within the council, which is hard to quantify. •

Is public procurement for social enterprise? The value of social enterprises for the public sector is clear and well documented, what is less clear is the value of public procurement for the social economy. Notes from the First annual conference of the Social Economy Network of Northern Irelandxxii indicate a level of antipathy: “A) Public procurement is merely the government seeking the delivery of services on the cheap? (Distinction between service level agreements and procured contracts of 12

Public procurement and social enterprises work). Organisations concerned they’re being pushed towards an arena in which they have little capacity. B) Individuals and organisation require intensive training to become skilled in the processes of procurement. C) Tender designers need to be specific in terms of what they mean and require in terms of added value from the sector D) A need for the public sector to account and appraise procurers tenders on the strength of their pursuit of social goals and how to accounting or audit the social dimension in relation to the economic ideal of ‘value for money’ or ‘best fit’.” A more profound critique, but no more relevant than that above, comes from an emerging critical social theory perspective in that the social economy is predicated on a failure that cannot be filled by throwing money, either by grant or procurement, at the problem, that effective social provision rises “out of failure, brokenness and death” so that such “entrepreneurial action stor[ies] fits so neatly into, and is supported by, New Labour discourse, there is no comparable policy envelope for the slower, more relational story of growth through brokenness, failure and passivity amidst vulnerability and social exclusion.xxiii” This critique suggests the potential for ‘mission’ drift as the stories social enterprises tell about themselves change as the enterprise moves from economic vulnerability and heightened sense of social justice to financial stability but with priorities subsumed by those of its funding ‘clients’. This disquiet s mirrored in Dart’sxxiv paper investigating a US mental health care charity that, faced with drastic grant cuts, became ‘more business-like’ under a new CEO and rationalised its service offering under new contracts, leading from supporting the clients until the need for support subsided to a packaged service of three days support. If the client’s needs were not met within the three day package, they were referred on, one assumes to another provider, or else outside the care support system. Although these closing comments may appear to be isolated afterthoughts, it should be asserted that these critiques indicate a fundamental resistance to the adoption of the ‘social enterprise in procurement’ model which needs to be addressed at the level of critique suggested by the authors.


Public procurement and social enterprises References



Powell, M. ed. (1999) New Labour, New Welfare State?, Bristol: The Policy Press. Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press. iii Jessop, B. (2000) ‘Governance Failure’ in B. Stoker (ed.) The New Politics of British Urban Governance. Basingstoke: Macmillan. iv Rhodes, R. (1997) Understanding Governance, Buckingham: Open University Press and Stoker, G. (2000) ‘Urban Political Science and the Challenge of Urban Governance’ in J. Pierre (ed.) Debating Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. v Newman, J. (2001) Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society, London: Sage Publications. vi Jupp, B. (2000) Working Together, London: Demos. vii Pete Mann, Sue Pritchard and Kirstein Rummery (2004) SUPPORTING INTERORGANIZATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR The role of joined up action learning and research Vol. 6 Issue 3 2004 417–439 Public Management Review ISSN 1471–9037 print/ISSN 1471–9045 online viii The UK has a distinct historical tradition of social enterprise. The modern cooperative form was established by a group of weavers in the Rochdale area in 1844, and the British consumer cooperative movement subsequently went on to become a key driver behind the establishment of the International Cooperative Alliance, which remains active today. The 1970s saw a new wave of consumer cooperation in line with new social movements of the times. In the 1980’s, worker cooperatives and other forms of community enterprise were initiated, sometimes with the support of local government, as a response to local employment creation. Pearce, J. (2003). Social Enterprise in Anytown (with a chapter by Alan Kay). London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. ix Community and Social Enterprise: What Role for Government? Prepared by Jo Barraketi For Department for Victorian Communities 2004 available at %20July04.pdf [accessed 27/10/05] x Social Investment Taskforce (2004) ‘Enterprising Communities: wealth beyond welfare’ [online], [accessed 27/10/05] available at xi Pharoah, C. & Scott, D. (2004) Social Enterprise in the Balance London. Charities Aid Foundation xii [accessed 27/10/05] xiii [accessed 27/10/0] xiv The requirement for councils is to achieve 2.5% per annum improvements on their 2004/5 baseline, of which at least half should be cashable. By 2007/8, efficiency gains equivalent to 7.5% of the 2004/5 baseline should be achieved. xv With a budget of £1.4 million to deliver £242 million of savings, albeit without any direct control over spending [Accessed 27/10/05] xvi Delivering Efficiency in Local Services Detailed guidance for local authorities %20guidance%5B1%5D.pdf [Accessed 27/10/05] xvii StrengtheningtThe Social Economy Antwerp 10-12 May 2004 Workshop Briefing Document – Draft Public-PrivateSocial Partnership And Public Procurement ETG2-DOC-108-v7-EN-wsbrief procurement xviii The London Borough of Tower Hamlets has provided a significant tool in this area through its guidance note on making a clear and defendable decision to partner with the social sector rather than traditional procurement mechanisms. xix Pers comm. Ben Tuxworth and Emma Dolman March 2005 xx Forum for the Future (2005) ‘Procuring sustainable health’ unpublished xxi BEST Procurement- Designing social enterprise business and procurement support programmes Tim Curtis, Research Fellow, Sustainable Development Research Centre and Jennifer Inglis, Social Enterprise East Midlands October 2005 xxii %202004.pdf [accessed 27/10/05] xxiii Narratives of Social Enterprise From Biography to Practice and Policy Critique Lynn Froggett Department of Social Work, University of Central Lancashire, UK Prue Chamberlayne School of Health and Social Welfare, Open University, UK Qualitative Social Work Sage Publications London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi, Vol. 3(1): 61–77 xxiv Being “Business-Like” in a Nonprofit Organization: AGrounded and Inductive Typology Raymond Dart Trent University Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 2, June 2004 290-310