Purpose

This decision seeks approval to commence a
procurement exercise for the provision of advocacy
services

Decision

To agree that Appendices 1, 2 and 3
are not for publication on the basis that it contains information
relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular
person (including the authority holding that information) as set
out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972
(as amended).

 

The Deputy Leader approves the
following procurement strategy for advocacy services. The contract
will be awarded for four years with the option to extend for a
further two years (4 years +2).

 

Reasons for the decision

There has been a growing recognition
of emerging advocacy needs that fall outside of the two currently
commissioned contracts, such as support for parents navigating
complex care systems, carers advocating for family members and
people facing financial or housing related challenges. These
evolving demands highlight the importance of a flexible and
inclusive advocacy model. The proposed model is well placed to
respond to these changes by enabling a broader range of advocacy
types to be delivered through a network of advocates.

 

Co-production with residents and
professionals has highlighted key challenges in the current model.
Feedback from workshops with social workers revealed that the
existing service structure is fragmented, leading to inconsistent
delivery, unclear referral responsibilities, and a disjointed
experience when engaging with advocacy services. This complexity
makes it harder for professionals to access timely and appropriate
support for residents. Capacity constraints within the community
advocacy contract were also raised, with concerns that residents
are not receiving support quickly enough. Similarly, resident
surveys reported difficulties navigating the system and noted long
wait times, reinforcing the need for a more integrated and
responsive model.

 

A single contract will reduce
fragmentation, increase flexibility, improve service integration,
and ensure a more seamless and person-centred advocacy offer for
residents. It will also deliver greater efficiency and value for
money by streamlining contract management and enabling economies of
scale.

 

Pre-market engagement with suppliers
of advocacy services has shown support for a single integrated lead
provider model, which allows for collaboration with specialist
organisations while maintaining clear lines of accountability.

 

Recommissioning the service through
a competitive procurement process will ensure continuity of
provision, compliance with procurement regulations, and delivery of
a high quality, accessible advocacy service for residents across
the borough.

 

Please refer to the report for more
details.

 

Alternative options considered

1.    
Option 1- Lead Provider Model (Recommended)
 
This option is
recommended as it enables the Council to deliver a more cohesive,
person-centred advocacy offer while improving efficiency and value
for money through streamlined contract management.
 
Consolidating
statutory and community advocacy into a single contract means the
Council can reduce duplication, simplify referral pathways, and
improve access for residents.
 
The lead provider
will be required to provide training and capacity-building support
to the borough’s network of advocates. This will help upskill
the local advocacy workforce, strengthen community resilience, and
ensure consistent quality across the borough. It will also support
the development of a sustainable pool of qualified advocates within
the borough, enabling the service to respond more effectively to
the emerging and evolving advocacy needs of residents.
 
This model supports
local VCSEs to contribute meaningfully and creates the flexibility
to respond to emerging advocacy needs within a coordinated
framework. The single point of access and triage system reduces
administrative burden and confusion, while potential savings can be
realised through reduced overheads, fewer spot purchases, and more
efficient use of advocacy resources.
 
2.    
Option 2- Separate contracts
 
This
model perpetuates service fragmentation and limits opportunities to
align delivery and outcomes. It would also continue the
administrative inefficiencies and capacity issues raised by
frontline professionals during engagement.
 
3.    
Option 3- Single Provider Model
 
This
model is not recommended as it risks excluding smaller, specialist
providers and creating a monopoly in the market.