The PSTA / Commissioning Compass / Reading
Key questions
Aspect of Commissioning 3: Capacity, capability, and confidence. Teaching text from June 2025.
June 2025 teaching template, slide 43
Capacity, capability, and confidence (1/2)
Are we building the ability to meet or prevent needs, across all sectors?
How effective are we at building the capability of people to support themselves or their place?
How effective are we at supporting people to help support each other ? Such as families, neighbours, communities, neighbourhood, place.
How effective are we at building capacity and capability in providers from all sectors and sources (voluntary, community, faith-based, social enterprise, private, and public)?
How consistently are we taking an enabling, strengths-based, approach?
Do we engage with internal and external providers, suppliers as partners and collaborate with them?
Effective balance of collaboration and contestability
Give each question a score and once completed document some observations and examples for each aspect 0 – 24 Poor (significant risk), 25 – 49 Fair (lesser/lower risk, improvement required) ,50 – 74 Good (shortfalls identified/need to be addressed) 75 – 100 Excellent (no action required)
June 2025 teaching template, slide 44
Capacity, capability, and confidence (2/2)
Are we taking an asset-based commissioning approach?
Do we have strong insight into our system of interventions and delivery, including our current and potential markets?
Do we have good capability to develop all provision and supply, including where needed, market making and market management capability?
Do we have a good understanding of all current delivery models and quality?
Are we providing funding and support that takes a long-term view and looks at impacts, including environmental and social justice?
Are we taking into account the local economic impact of our spending?
Are we actively supporting workforce development?
Give each question a score and once completed document some observations and examples for each aspect 0 – 24 Poor (significant risk), 25 – 49 Fair (lesser/lower risk, improvement required) ,50 – 74 Good (shortfalls identified/need to be addressed) 75 – 100 Excellent (no action required)