The people and the place
In 1999 Wolverhampton City Council embarked on a programme of community engagement, one goal of which was to empower older citizens by making the authority more responsive to their needs.
The Council asked the over-50s forum, a group who meet regularly, where public services fell down for older residents. They identified bereavement as an area of concern, and in particular the long list of tasks that are required of the bereaved at a time of great emotional distress.
The Council decided to convene a workshop of stakeholder groups to think about how these services could be improved. Members of this group included:
- Council departments
- National agencies such as the Benefits Agency and the Inland Revenue
- The voluntary sector, including local multi-faith groups; and representatives from the local coroner's office, hospitals and funeral directors.
Initially the group considered joint literature to improve the quality of advice available to the bereaved, but it soon became clear that they could go one step further and put in place a one-stop shop; a single point of contact where the bereaved could access the necessary information and services.
There was a consensus that this would be something worth trying and the group applied for funding through the Treasury's 'Invest to Save' budget, to cover set-up and development costs. Their application was successful and the Authority advertised among the partners for someone to take the project forward. Rob Lawton, who was then with the Benefits Agency, was appointed.
The innovation and the impact
Rob's first task was to set out a vision of what the one-stop shop might look like. He put forward a proposal for a joint reception, co-locating the Authority's existing bereavement services team with the Registrar's office. There is a legal requirement for deaths to be recorded in person with a Registrar, and a shared point of contact would mean that the bereaved could be referred directly to Rob and his staff.
The new bereavement centre came online in April 2001, following a refurbishment of the reception. Of the 3,000 deaths registered annually, some 2,000 people now go on to use the bereavement centre.
The centre provides expert advice and practical assistance, and its aim is to settle the affairs of the deceased quickly and securely, minimising the duplication of paperwork required by the agencies involved. Electronic notification of the death is sent to the relevant council departments; housing benefits, social services, pensions, and, if required, education. This initiates any action required. A benefits advisor, seconded from the Department for Work and Pensions, is available for consultation and Probate hold weekly hearings at the centre. External partners are also notified of the death, and staff can provide informed advice about the services offered by other organisations.
The service has now grown, with other partners coming on board, including water companies. It attracts high levels of usage and satisfaction, with questionnaires indicating that 97 per cent of users rate the service as very good. Other areas of the Council, such as Housing Benefit, have identified direct savings made from more timely information and a reduction in personal visits.
How did the innovation happen?
Bereavement was not obviously an area in need of a new and innovative approach. Wolverhampton's Chief Executive Richard Carr describes the service as a 'pocket of activity that had functioned in its own way fairly effectively for a number of years'. Without the input of the over-50s group, senior managers would not have identified an issue: 'the trigger here was our consultation process, which we took seriously, and which threw this back at us'.
Similarly, bringing the full range of partners together changed the way the Authority looked at its bereavement service. It was previously regarded as a back-office function whose processes were necessarily regimented and legalistic, but now the various agencies began to see the wider picture from the perspective of the user. It became clear that there was much they could do to streamline the processes involved and make a potentially traumatic experience less distressing.
Early on Rob identified a key risk. Staff should be able to advise users on the services offered by all partners, but calculating benefit payments for them or telling them whether they could keep their house would be going far beyond their remit. The Authority concentrated on training their staff to a safe level of knowledge and set up a programme of half-day training courses to do the same for partners.
Publicising the centre was another challenge. As Rob notes there is no target user group: 'the nature of the subject is that people don't want to know, and the only time they do want to know is when bereavement occurs'. Instead they contacted bodies that might encounter bereavement such as GPs surgeries, hospitals, and nursing homes, and there was a programme of promoting awareness of the Centre among partner agencies' staff.
Members took the project very seriously. It was considered at a high level and Councillor Pat Byrne, the then cabinet member for Environmental Services, championed it as something that should be mainstreamed when initial funding expired, and it duly became a high priority for members. For Richard, this is indicative of the Council's overall approach: 'Our Councillors do not dismiss something because it is new - they will look to see what the benefits are, what the funding issues are and what the impact is'.
What helped to get started?
The ambition of the Authority to work more corporately to put customers at the centre of service provision meant that it was open to considering new ways of working and consulting with users. It also meant that there was senior buy-in to innovating in this service area from the outset.
Wolverhampton has a history of strong partnership working, and looks to deliver in partnership, where applicable, across all service areas. Councillor Andrew Johnson, the current portfolio holder for Environmental Services, is of the view that in Wolverhampton 'organisations think outside the organisational box', and puts this down to a strong city focus across all local public bodies.
What helped to keep it going?
The initiative would not have happened, at least on the same scale, without access to external funding. Invest to Save Budget (ISB) funding from HM Treasury, which was matched by the Council and partners, provided for the recruitment of a project coordinator, two and a half administrative staff, and some of the costs of refurbishing the accommodation.
The approach of the Authority to managing the implementation did not change because the bereavement centre was innovative. Its approach depends on a risk assessment and in this case it took the view that existing relationships with partners and skilled and committed staff minimised the risk of failure.
The support of members was also critical. A cabinet member acting as a champion for the project meant that it became a priority for the Authority. An assessment of benefits, made at the end of the set-up period, assisted in selling the story to members. Being able to demonstrate the numbers who used the centre also helped persuade officers and members of the worth of the innovation.
What helped to share the learning?
As far as it is aware, Wolverhampton's bereavement centre is the only one of its kind in England, but Richard says that he would still hesitate to use the word 'innovative', at least with those who use the service: 'If you speak to the Over-50s forum about the bereavement centre they would just say it was common sense and that it is the bureaucracies getting themselves sorted out.'
The Authority has hosted many visits from other authorities, but is not aware of the concept being taken forward elsewhere. Wider dissemination has also occurred through literature produced by HM Treasury in relation to funding Wolverhampton received through the ISB scheme. In addition to this, the City Council's IT department secured 'Pathfinder' funding to develop the web-based Bereavement Centre application. Conditions of this funding included disseminating the lessons learned to other local authorities. This involved a national conference arranged in partnership with three other Pathfinder authorities and the production of a CD-Rom which was sent to Chief Executives and bereavement service managers across England and Wales.
Challenges along the way
The main challenge in delivering the initiative was managing the varying approaches of partners. Whereas Inland Revenue were keen that the Council take on as much of their existing role as possible, Probate wanted them to do little more than make users aware of their services. A suitable compromise was reached with both these partner organisations. Duplication still exists in the new system because of the statutory requirements of the Registrar's Office, and this is something that the Council has tried to make central government aware of.
The Authority has tried to e-enable the bereavement service, with notification of death to be sent to all partners electronically. There are, however, issues around connectivity and data sharing and compatibility which are not yet resolved.
What next?
Wolverhampton continues to look for opportunities to build on its success so far. It still has ambitions for an e-enabled bereavement service and is always on the look out for potential partners. The latest to come on board is the local water provider.
More widely, Wolverhampton has recently refreshed its older people's strategy in consultation with the community. It is continuing to focus on what makes life better for older people, and is now targeting their concerns with transport and neighbourhood safety.