Agenda item

The report sought approval to extend the contract with Ark Resettlement Services (ARKRS) for the provision of Haringey Moving Forward Services; specialist housing related support to prison leavers, as allowed under Contract Standing Order (CSO) 18.03.

The Cabinet Member RESOLVED

1. To approve retrospectively, in accordance with Contract Standing Order 18.03, the variation of the contract for the provision of Haringey Moving Forward delivered by ARK Resettlement Services and extend for a further period of 8.5 months, effective from 16th June to 28th February 2026 at the cost of £112,369. The aggregated total value of the contract will be £611,377 including the proposed extension.

2. To note that the London Probation Service has been match-funding 50% of the service cost and will continue their contribution for the duration of the extension period proposed in paragraph 3.1 above. As a result, the actual cost of the service specific to Haringey over the life of the contract will be £305,688.50.

Reasons for decision

Research showed that prison leavers without settled accommodation were nearly 50% more likely to reoffend. This made housing a critical factor in successful reintegration into society. Ark Resettlement Services, in partnership with the London Probation Service, delivers the Haringey Moving Forward service which provides supported accommodation for ex-offenders. 

As a provider Ark Resettlement Services possess the expertise to rapidly meet the multiple and complex needs of this client group having previously delivered positive outcomes whilst working jointly with the London Probation Service and Haringey’ Housing Department. 

Haringey, like many London boroughs, faced high housing demand and affordability challenges. Ex-offenders often struggled to compete in the private rental market due to: 

• Lack of income or employment. 

• Stigma from landlords. 

• Complex support needs (e.g., mental health, substance misuse). 

The service supported ex- offenders to integrate back into the community and supports rehabilitation thereby reducing the risk of re-offending. There was a demonstrable need for Haringey Moving Forward service which supported low - medium risk offenders to live independently in the community, reduce re-offending and access education training and employment.

The service contributed towards both public protection and the social inclusion of offenders, whilst supporting the Council’s priority to make Haringey a place where people feel safe, want to live, work and visit. The service met the Council’s strategic objectives of delivering short term housing related support, early intervention, tenancy sustainment services, preventing escalation of need and demand on criminal justice, health and social care provisions. A contributory factor to rough sleeping upon prison discharge was the shortage of suitable supported accommodation for people to rapidly move off the street and into secure housing. Whilst also contributing towards both public protection and the social inclusion of offenders and supporting the Council’s priority to make Haringey a place where people feel safe, want to live, work and visit.

The Council had a duty to provide temporary accommodation to residents. The additional funding provided by the London Probation Service, formed part of the new Rough Sleeping Prevention and Recovery programme funding for rough sleeping services and support for ex-offenders. Funding was also to ensure ex-offenders leaving prison rapidly, got the support and accommodation they needed to live independently.

If the service was to be discontinued or decommissioned, service users would likely end up re-offending or may end up rough sleeping and homeless. The Council would also lose this most needed funding to support these vulnerable residents, which would put a strain on the Council’s main resources. For example:

 Housing Services - demand for housing would increase as ex- offenders often face difficulties in securing housing due to stigma and financial instability.

 Social Care Services – many ex-offenders had mental health and substance abuse issues that needed ongoing support, which in turn put pressure on social care services.

Given the uncertainty of long-term funding, a short-term extension was necessary to maintain service continuity. An 8.5-month extension provides a balanced approach, allowing time for securing longer-term funding arrangements while ensuring ongoing support for service users.

By extending the contract for 8.5 months, the Council can continue to provide essential support to ex-offenders, contributing to their successful reintegration into society and reducing the overall costs associated with homelessness and reoffending. This approach aligned with the Council’s commitment to supporting vulnerable residents and promoting community safety and well-being. Therefore, an extension of the existing contract was the most advantageous option. At the end of the extension period the Council would initiate a competitive procurement process to select a provider for a new contract.

Alternative options considered

Do nothing: - This option was considered and not found to be viable due to the following reasons:

 There was only a statutory requirement to provide housing for single homeless people where they were identified as vulnerable and in priority need under Section 189 of the Housing Act (1996 amended 2002). However, Haringey like all London boroughs recognised the human, social and economic costs associated with homelessness and the need to ensure that people were adequately supported to recover from it and prevent future instances.

 If the service was to be discontinued or decommissioned, service users may end up rough sleeping and homeless which would put a strain on the Council’s resources as outlined in point 4.7 of the report.

 Communities that invest in re-entry housing for ex-offenders often benefit from reduced crime rates, increased employment, and stronger social cohesion. Without such services, these benefits were lost.

Tender process - Although a tender process was considered, the current year-on-year match funding arrangement with the Probation Services restricts the Council’s planning and recommissioning strategies. The Council was in discussions with the London Probation Service to secure a two-year funding agreement. Extending the contract was prudent to ensure continuity of the existing service and minimise disruption or displacement of service users while exploring other market options.