Skip to content

Decision details

Sheffield Advocacy Hub

Decision Maker: Co-operative Executive

Decision status: For Determination

Is Key decision?: Yes

Purpose:

Replacement of the wide range of Advocacy provision in Sheffield with a single point of contract – The Sheffield Advocacy Hub.

Decision:

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: