Content

14.1

The
Strategic Commissioning Manager for Direct Payments and Unpaid
Carers introduced the report which detailed the position on
Corporate Appointeeships, including issues with the current
approach. The report made the case for change and highlighted
potential options that were considered as part of an appraisal
process.

14.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Adult Health
and Social Care Policy Committee:-

Notes
the review of Appointeeships and mitigations in response to the
review.
Approves the proposal for the Council’s in-house provider
(Executor Services), to provide Corporate Appointeeships where
appropriate, whilst making external purchases available where a
best interest assessment, or other circumstance identifies this is
required.
Notes
that a progress review update will be brought to Committee within 6
months of this Committee meeting, as part of the Safeguarding
Delivery Plan Update to Committee.

14.3

Reasons for Decision

14.3.1

Option
2
 
This
offers the best balance between value for money, quality assurance,
and operational efficiency and addresses risks identified. Executor
Services is one of the best value options available, whilst
providing the outcomes that DWP requires of Appointeeships. This
option also enables integrated approaches across social care,
housing, and health to easily share, and update information.
Finally, in the current financial climate, it is vital that we get
best value, option 2 provides this.

14.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

14.4.1

All alternative options were set out in section
2.3 above. Please refer to this section for detail.

14.4.2

Alternative Option 1 Do nothing - This is
because this is the current situation and has inherent risks as
noted above and is not providing best value and quality assurance
regards provision of Corporate Appointeeships.

14.4.3

Alternative Option 3 Executor Services as
a default option and external providers on a RPL as the secondary
option. Although this option gives more quality assurance, it is
more expensive as it does not control the cost of external
providers and likely to not comply with council
standards.

14.4.4

Alternative Option 4 External providers on
a Framework – although a satisfactory option it is not as
cost effective as option 2.