Agenda item

[Report  of the Assistant Director for Commissioning. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Children and Families.] Cabinet will be asked to consider the options appraisal of the Haslemere Road Centre following a Commissioning Review.

The Cabinet Member for Children and Families introduced the report which provided options for future care at Haslemere Respite Centre, a current specialist unit providing respite accommodation and day services for children with disabilities or other special additional needs.

 

The Cabinet Member highlighted the consultation undertaken with parents and carers of current service users where Option 2[outlined at appendix 1] was favoured as this ensured local provision continued and would enable more consistent stable standards of service provision.

 

RESOLVED

 

1. To approve option 2, as set out at appendix 1, allowing the Council to commission Haslemere Road Respite Centre either under a block contract with a specialist provider, or by renting out the Centre to a specialist provider from whom the Council and parents can spot purchase beds.

 

2. To provide the Assistant Director of Commissioning, after consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member, with delegated authority to make the decision on whether to commission the Centre under a block contract or by renting out the Centre. 

 

Reasons for decision

 

The Council had gone through a robust Commissioning Review of Haslemere Road Respite Centre, through which three options have been appraised (more details can be found in Appendix 1).

 

By commissioning the Centre (Option 2), the Council would ensure that:  

           

The Centre would be commissioned to a single specialised provider, which would provide the packages of respite we need under a block contract.

 

Or

 

The Centre would be commissioned to a single specialised provider through a rental agreement of the premises, which provider would provide the packages of respite we need on a spot purchasing basis.

 

This option would offer the possibility of fully utilising the centre on Mondays, and Tuesdays and during the day on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays.

 

By commissioning the centre, service users would get better Value for Money (VfM), both in terms of Quality (all the suppliers we engaged have Good or Outstanding Ofsted Ratings) and Price.

 

Through commissioning the Centre, the Council would keep its service local to the community, thus keeping transport costs down and families happy.

 

Through block-contracting, the Council would continue to be able to manage the prioritisation of cases and the acceptance criteria for the Centre’s use.

 

Through renting out the Centre to a specialist provider the Council would:

           

·        Have more flexibility in reviewing this provision in the future.

 

·        Offer the supplier the possibility of having a more sustainable model, as they can develop a business model that fully utilises the asset, without relying on the Council for full funding

 

·        Offer the possibility for other Boroughs to use the centre through spot purchasing (with the possibility of the Council receiving preferential rates from the supplier)

 

·        Be receiving rent for the building (currently estimated at £71k per annum).

 

·        Transferring Ofsted accountability to the new provider.

 

Through commissioning the Centre, the Council has the potential to address the overspend and come back to budget, in time even be able to have a surplus of cc £50k-£121k.

 

Under this option, the 14 staff assigned to the Centre would most likely transfer to the new provider under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”).  Terms and conditions would be protected at the point of transfer.  If following the TUPE transfer  the new provider sought to change the contracts of the transferring staff, and the sole or main reason for its seeking to make those changes was the transfer, then unless the contracts allowed the new provider to make the changes , then :-

 

·        the staff would need to agree to the changes; and

 

• The new provider would need to have an ETO reason for the changes.

 

• An ETO’ reason is an ‘economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce”

 

The maintenance of the building will remain the Council’s responsibility, unless it is differently stipulated in the Contract or Rental Agreement with the supplier.

 

This option also offers the opportunity for the Council to plan and review the location of the Centre in the future, in line with our Regeneration objectives and the proximity to young people’s homes (most being in Tottenham and Wood Green).

 

An Equality Impact Assessment (Appendix 5) has been carried out for the service users group and staff. It has found that the changes proposed would have a positive impact on the service user groups and little to no impact on staff.

 

Alternative options considered

 

Option 1 – Keep the Centre In-House

 

• By keeping the Centre in-house we would maintain the resource locally, however we would be still held to account by Ofsted on the service provision.

 

• Moreover, based on current costs, the Centre would be forecast to have a yearly overspend of £150k.

 

• The Centre would continue to be underutilised by keeping it closed Monday-Tuesday, and during the day Wednesday-Friday.

 

• This option cannot be recommended, as it does not change the status quo and does not improve the outcomes we seek for our children and young people with SEND.

 

Option 3 – Sell the Centre to a Specialised Provider at Market Value

 

• In this option, the Council would be selling off the building (at market value) to a private provider and would have spot purchasing packages with that provider or with other providers.

 

• The provider that expressed interest in buying the Centre said that they would not be using it solely for short breaks but also residential, with a 10%-90% split. As a result, we would have to spot purchase most of the beds we require from other providers.

 

• At the 17th of May 2016, nearby providers had only 20 beds available for the rest of the year, if we were to spot purchase from other providers. Thus, for the remaining 24 of our current service users there would be no service provision in the proximity of Haringey. Moreover, transport costs to out-of-borough providers would increase.

 

• Through selling the Centre, children, young people and parents would be losing a local resource to which they have become attached to.

 

• However, through this option, the Council could gain around £2.9m worth of capital receipts by selling the building.

 

• This option cannot be recommended, despite the gain in capital funding, as it would not be in the best interests of children and young people with SEND.