Purpose

The decision required will be to agree to the direct award of a contract to a selected children’s home service provider under the urgency procurement procedures. This decision will lead to the direct award of a contract to run the children’s home and deliver registered services for a period of 12 months with the option to extend for a further 6 months; resulting in a total contract period of up to 18 months. This action is necessary as a short-term, interim measure to ensure minimal service disruption while a longer-term tender process takes place.

Decision

For the reasons set out in the reports (Part A and B) and appendices, the Corporate Director for Children, Young People and Education RESOLVED to:

Agree the direct award of a contract to the provider for the provision of children’s residential care for a period of 12 months with the option to extend for a further six months and for the maximum value stated in the Part B report

Reasons for the decision

Section 22G of the Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to take steps that secure, so far as reasonably practicable, sufficient accommodation within the authority’s area, which meets the needs of children that the local authority are looking after, and whose circumstances are such that it would be consistent with their welfare for them to be provided with accommodation that is in the local authority’s area (‘the sufficiency duty’).

The Sufficiency Duty set out in Care Planning and Review Regulations 2010 makes it every local authority’s duty to provide sufficient accommodation for children looked after in their area.

As corporate parents, we have a responsibility to ensure that children receive the highest possible standard of care and a reduction in placement sufficiency could adversely affect the Council's ability to fulfil its statutory home finding duties.

During their October 2024 inspection, Ofsted noted in their report that Croydon has the largest under 18 population in London.  Croydon also has the highest number of children in care in London, it also has c.1,200 children in care placed in Croydon by other Local Authorities, thus exacerbating the sufficiency of provision in the Borough.

It was hoped that the development of this Children’s Home would support the Council in improving its planning for sufficiency, increase capacity, enable the Council to do things differently and, by working in partnership with a provider who would run the home day-today, would help improve outcomes for our children looked after in Croydon. The appointment of this new delivery partner will enable this ambition to continue.

The unavailability of this provision may result in children remaining in alternative placements for longer periods and inhibits the Council’s ability to meet its statutory responsibilities.  In addition, this will impact the anticipated cost savings associated with the development of the home and may delay the achievement of care planning objectives for some children, including timely moves to placements that best meet their assessed needs.

The swift implementation of a direct award will enable continued delivery of the home whilst lessons are learnt and a more robust procurement strategy is devised and enacted.  

The recommended service provider submitted a compliant tender, meeting the Council’s specification, delivering a social value offer and providing value for money.

Alternative options considered

OPTION 1

Option

Insource / In-House Delivery

Feasibility

The option to deliver the service directly is considered by officers to present operational and financial risks to the Council for the following reasons:

·         Timescales:Preparing to deliver in-house would increase the time the home was closed as governance agreements would be needed to recruit the relevant staff, together with a recruitment campaign to ensure the correct number of people at each level were sourced.  As we do not have the expertise in-house this would take longer than directly awarding the contract to a provider with ongoing concerns in this field.

·         Legal/procurement constraints: Creating an in-house team of people would be difficult to reverse if performance was not as expected. Outsourcing the home if Croydon was unable to successfully deliver would create a TUPE responsibility which would need to be managed. Providers are unlikely to find the home to be a viable proposition with local government terms and conditions attached to the workers.

·         Council capacity:The Council does not currently have the necessary capacity and capability to deliver this home. While Croydon successfully delivers a Short Breaks home, this will require different expertise. Recruiting a Registered Manager and residential staff, obtaining the Ofsted registration and managing the service are specialist activities that the Council would need to recruit to deliver.

·         Service continuity/transition risk:With all of the considerations outlined here, it is likely that the home would need to close for a longer period of time to enable an in-house option to be progressed. Additional management posts would be required within the Council, which will add to overall costs and reduce the savings impact.

Benefits and Drawbacks

Any in-house set up at this stage would delay the improvement plans agreed through the Helping Families Thrive programme and the Council’s transformation plan and it will negatively impact the cost savings associated with the project. In addition, the DfE capital grant would need to be paid back and this capital funding was used to refurbish the property.

The interruption of the service will negatively impact the young people currently residing in the home and the achievement of care planning objectives may be delayed for some children.

Overall Assessment

Not Recommended

OPTION 2

Option

Do Nothing

Feasibility

Doing nothing and continuing to purchase children’s home care from the open market at market rates, accepting that children will continue to need to live away from their homes is not an option for the following reasons.

·         Legal/procurement constraints: The market in this area has limited ability to meet the needs of children who need to transition to family-based settings. This is a specialist ask and requires a great deal of market development to create competition amongst existing providers. Going out to the market again without having the time to do this engagement and development work will result in the same results we previously experienced. The current provider was unable to provide any assurance that they could upskill to the necessary level.

·         Market/supplier availability: Providers with the capability to offer the type of service we are trying to create within this provision are limited and often expensive. Most providers business model is based on longer term interventions or those with permanence plans requiring consistent residential care. This does not meet our improvement plans towards a family first model of delivery.

·         Council capacity: Searches for specialist solutions for children in care can be long winded and resource intensive.  

·         Service continuity/transition risk: Doing nothing would negatively impact the improvement plans agreed through the Helping Families Thrive programme and the Council’s transformation plan and it will affect the cost savings associated with the project.

·         Non-financial constraints: Doing nothing would also result in the Council having to pay the capital grant back to the DfE and this capital funding was used to refurbish the property therefore this option has been discarded.

Benefits and Drawbacks

The unavailability of this provision may result in children remaining in alternative placements for longer periods and inhibits the Council’s ability to meet its statutory responsibilities

Overall Assessment

Not Recommended

OPTION 3

Option

Direct award – via framework direct award / call-off, or sole supplier, or continuity/transition risk case, or grant-mandated/urgent case.  

Feasibility

This option of commissioning a selected Service Provider via Direct Award is recommended on the basis that:

·         Timescales: A direct award is the only option that delivers an expertly run, registered home without long service provision interruption. The identified providers have other homes so can manage resources across their portfolio. They have also managed the transition of services from another provider before, making them a tied and tested option and minimising delays caused by inexperience.

·         Legal/procurement constraints: This Direct Award is necessary as a short-term, interim measure to ensure minimal service disruption while a longer-term tender process takes place.

·         Market/supplier availability: There are very few providers in the market with this level of expertise and who can quickly mobilise to take over the running of a children’s home of this nature and outcome expectations. Extensive market engagement will be required to find providers able and willing to take on this resource for a longer period and to provide meaningful competition.

·         Council capacity: This option provides the minimal council resource to mobilise over and above that which is already in place to support a provider to run this home.

·         Service continuity/transition risk: This option enables systems already in place to continue and identified children to access the home as planned.

·         Non-financial constraints: This option enables the Council to continue to meet its statutory responsibilities in this space without further disruption and limited delay.

Benefits and Drawbacks

• The swift implementation of a direct award will enable continued delivery of the home whilst lessons are learnt, and a more robust procurement strategy is devised and enacted
• It will enable the improvement plans agreed through the Helping Families Thrive programme and the Council’s transformation plan to continue as planned
• The DfE capital grant would not need to be paid back
• It would mean that young people will be able to continue to live in the borough and benefit from the service that has been created plus continue to access local services that they know and trust
• The option of a Direct Award will enable continued delivery of the home whilst lessons are learnt and a more robust procurement strategy is devised and enacted. This is the preferred option
• The recommended service provider submitted a compliant tender, meeting the Council’s specification, delivering a social value offer and providing value for money
• The decision sought will support the Council’s priorities (Mayor’s Business Plan and Croydon’s Transformation Plan)

Overall Assessment

Recommended