Content

11.1

The Committee considered a report of the
Executive Director of Neighbourhood Services which sought
permission to recommission and re-procure a five-year contract for
a psychology service that provides reflective practice and case
formulation support to staff working with homeless individuals who
have experienced complex trauma.

 

 

11.2

RESOLVED: That the Housing
Policy Committee:-

(a) 
Approves the re-commission and re-procurement of a psychology
service to provide reflective practice and case formulation support
to staff working in commissioned services and internal homelessness
services over a period of 5 years, for a core contract value of
£97,068 per year (£485,340 total contract value).

(b) 
Approves the distribution of additional income as set out in
section 1.3. of Appendix 1 attached to the report.

(c) 
Records its concern at the proposed closure of the therapy service
for women in supported accommodation.
 
(NOTE: Part (c) was agreed
unanimously.  For parts (a) and (b) the
result of the vote on the resolution was FOR - 6 Members; AGAINST -
1 Member; ABSTENTION – 0 Members).
.

 

 

11.2.1

Councillor Paul Turpin asked for his vote
against parts (a) and (b) of the resolution to be recorded

 

 

11.3

Reasons for
Decision

 

 

11.3.1

The current service ends on 9th May 2026. The
service supports staff in statutory internal Homelessness services
and commissioned supported accommodation services to respond to the
needs of the complex clients they work with, through clinical and
psychologically informed intervention. The service also supports
wider organisational objectives. Failure to recommission the
contract could potentially result in reduced staff
wellbeing/morale, increased service refusals and evictions,
alongside a less trauma-informed approach being taken across
commissioned and internal services.

 

 

 

 

11.4

Alternatives
Considered and Rejected

 

 

11.4.1

Alternative Option 1 - Don’t
recommission and lose provision
As explored above, not having this service
would create risk and potentially result in: reduced staff wellbeing/morale, increased
service refusals and evictions, alongside a less trauma-informed
approach being taken across commissioned and internal services.
This could increase the pressure on TA and the use of B&B
accommodation.

 

 

11.4.2

Alternative Option 2 – Commission the
service internally from another service area, or another statutory
service, which may be more familiar with delivering similar
services e.g. Adult Social Care or NHS.

·      
It would be difficult to get the level of expertise in other
services that are operating that balance knowledge of comorbidity
of homelessness and multiple disadvantage alongside clinical
expertise. 

·      
There is a benefit to the service being delivered independently of
the Council. Staff have said they find the sessions a ‘safe
space’ where they can discuss issues around workload, and
that it’s valuable to have this provided by a service that is
separate from the council.

 

 

11.4.3

Alternative Option 3 – Deliver the
service ourselves

·      
A job description would need to be developed.

·      
The employee would need access to clinical supervision in addition
to line manager supervision and there is not an obvious alignment
with existing teams. As with option 2, there is a benefit to the
service being delivered independently of the Council.

·      
This option is likely to be less cost effective and flexible than
externally procuring the service. The proposed arrangement means
that it would be possible for the Council to use external funding
to enhance provision quickly.