Decision Maker: Co-operative Executive
Decision status: For Determination
Is Key decision?: Yes
Replacement of the wide range of Advocacy provision in Sheffield with a single point of contract – The Sheffield Advocacy Hub.
12.1 |
The Executive Director, Communities submitted a report seeking approval to proceed with the development, procurement and implementation of the “Sheffield Advocacy Hub”. |
|
|
|
|
12.2 |
RESOLVED: That:- |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
from April 2017, Sheffield City Council (SCC) commissions a comprehensive, integrated advocacy service using a “Hub” format as described in the report; the new service to be known as “The Sheffield Advocacy Hub”; |
|
|
|
|
(b) |
the authority to initiate the tender process and award the contract to the most suitable bidder for a period of 5 years, is delegated to the Director of Commissioning; |
|
|
|
|
(c) |
the necessary funding is transferred from existing budgets into a new single business unit to facilitate payment processes and forecasting in time for the start of the new arrangements; the total funding over 5 years is estimated to be £4,465,695; and |
|
|
|
|
(d) |
the existing advocacy contracts are terminated in line with their notice periods from the date the new arrangement starts. |
|
|
|
12.3 |
Reasons for Decision |
|
|
|
|
12.3.1 |
A paper to Communities JLT in 2015 initiated a series of consultations culminating in an options appraisal which strongly recommended that a “Hub” model is developed using a “cost and volume” contract. Details are included in Appendix 1 of the report but the main arguments in favour of the Hub model are: • A single, easily accessed point of contact • More effective and easier communication • Consistent standards • Economies of scale including lower back-office costs • Capacity is consolidated; best practice can be shared • More efficient use of statutory advocacy hours coupled with a more robust system of sign-posting to alternative sources of support.
The main arguments supporting a Cost and Volume approach are: • The block element offers some assurance for providers and allows up-front investment in training and development. • Allows flexibility for purchaser above the minimum levels |
|
|
|
|
12.4 |
Alternatives Considered and Rejected |
|
|
|
|
12.4.1 |
A range of alternative options for contract and payment structure were considered.
Contract Structure
Individual contracts for each type of advocacy Framework contract Single Provider delivering all services Hub Model – PREFERRED OPTION |
|
|
|
|
12.4.2 |
Payment model
Block contract- fixed payments based on forecast activity Spot purchase - all advocacy bought on a case buy cases basis at a tendered hourly rate Cost and Volume – (block plus spot) – PREFERRED OPTION |
|
|
|
|
12.5 |
Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted |
|
|
|
|
12.5.1 |
None |
|
|
|
|
12.6 |
Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration |
|
|
|
|
12.6.1 |
None |
|
|
|
|
12.7 |
Respective Director Responsible for Implementation |
|
|
|
|
12.7.1 |
Laraine Manley, Executive Director, Communities |
|
|
|
|
12.8 |
Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In |
|
|
|
|
12.8.1 |
Healthier Communities and Adult Social Care |
Report author: Joe Fowler
Publication date: 23/09/2016
Date of decision: 21/09/2016
Decided at meeting: 21/09/2016 - Co-operative Executive
Effective from: 30/09/2016
Accompanying Documents: