Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director of Adults, Housing and Health. To be presented by the Cabinet Member for Housing.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST MADE FOR THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Approved, pursuant to Contract Standing Orders (CSO) 2.01(b), the commencement of a procurement process for the provision of HRS SACNP, as set out in Exempt Appendix 1, in accordance with the Council’s Contract Standing Orders and procurement legislation.

2.    Approved a funding envelope of up to £8,373,666 for the initial contract term of four years, inclusive of a 4% inflationary increase. It was noted that the maximum aggregate value of the contracts could be up to £24,420,706 if all extension periods were exercised, with any extension beyond the initial term subject to separate approval in line with the Council’s governance and financial regulations.

3.    Approved that the service lots described in Exempt Appendix 1 formed the scope of the procurement, with contract durations and commencement dates as set out in the report.

4.    Approved the development of a Supported Exempt Accommodation (SEA) and Social Enterprise model, with the Council working in partnership with supported housing providers and the voluntary and community sector to explore opportunities to deliver lower?intensity, accommodation?based support.

Reasons for decision

There was an ongoing and evidenced need for specialist housing?related support for single adults with multiple and intersecting needs, as outlined elsewhere in the report. Existing provision played an important role in preventing homelessness, supporting safe discharge from hospital and other institutions, and enabling residents to stabilise and sustain independent living. Approval to commence procurement was therefore required to ensure continuity of services and sufficient capacity to meet current and emerging need.

The procurement of these services supported the Council in meeting its statutory duties. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 set out statutory prevention duties, requiring earlier intervention and partnership working across public authorities to prevent homelessness. Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 placed a joint duty on the Council and health bodies to provide appropriate aftercare for individuals discharged from mental health detention, supporting complex needs and reducing the risk of avoidable readmissions.

Commissioning sufficient supported accommodation enabled the Council to meet its statutory responsibilities in a planned and preventative way, reducing reliance on higher?cost Adult Social Care and Temporary Accommodation. Evidence indicated that this represented a more cost?effective approach, with Haringey’s pricing at the lower end of regional benchmarks. Approval of the proposed funding envelope therefore supported statutory delivery while achieving value for money.

A long?term block contract model supported service stability and continuity. Longer contract durations enabled providers to take a more strategic approach to delivery, invest in workforce development, and embed consistent practice. This approach also supported stronger relationships between residents and staff. Approval of the proposed service lots and contract structure enabled delivery of a consistent and cost?effective supported accommodation pathway.

The proposed transition of lower?level provision to a SEA and Social Enterprise model supported the development of a diverse and locally responsive offer, including specialist provision for groups requiring culturally competent support. The Council worked with partners to ensure that this provision was maintained and strengthened. The introduction of this model was not intended to reduce overall capacity but to maintain, and where possible expand, lower?support accommodation while improving outcomes and value for money.

The proposals aligned with the Council’s Corporate Delivery Plan 2024–26, particularly the priorities relating to adults, health and welfare and homes for the future, supporting wellbeing, reducing inequalities and promoting safe and secure housing through partnership working.

Alternative options considered

Extending existing contracts was not considered viable, as one provider had formally notified the Council of its intention to withdraw from care and support services, with an agreed early termination date. The contract could not be extended beyond this point, and proceeding without procurement would have risked service disruption and displacement of residents.

Temporarily transferring contracts to alternative providers was considered but discounted due to operational and continuity risks. Short?term contracts were unlikely to attract sufficient market interest and would have increased the risk of service disruption, safeguarding concerns and inconsistent quality, while still requiring a full re?tender within a short timeframe.

Recommissioning all existing services without transitioning lower?level provision to the SEA model was also considered. While this would have maintained continuity, it was not regarded as the most effective or sustainable option, as it limited the Council’s ability to prioritise higher?intensity support and develop a more flexible and outcomes?focused approach.

Not recommissioning the higher?support services was rejected due to the statutory, operational and financial risks involved. This option would have increased the risk of homelessness among vulnerable residents, placing additional pressure on Temporary Accommodation and Adult Social Care and undermining the Council’s statutory duties.

Delivering the services in?house was not considered viable due to limited Council property assets and the scale of investment and specialist capacity required. While smaller services may be suitable for in?house delivery in some circumstances, this was not considered a practical or cost?effective model for the wider pathway.