Agenda item

10.1

The Committee considered a report of the Head of Commissioning – Vulnerable People.

This report sought approval to re-commission a number of services that provide accommodation and support to vulnerable people who were at risk of homelessness and other poor health and wellbeing outcomes.

10.2

10.3

Following discussion with the Chair, the presenting Officer asked that Members consider the recommendations on the basis that the word ‘total’ was inserted between estimated and value in each of the recommendations. 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Adult Health and Social Care Policy Committee:

1)    the re-commissioning of a street outreach service from an external provider for a period of five years and an estimated total value of £1,100,015, as set out in this report.

2)    the re-commissioning of an accommodation and support service for people with a history of offending from an external provider for a period of five years and an estimated total value of £2,008,220, as set out in this report.

3)    the commissioning of an abstinence-based accommodation and support service from an external provider for a period of five years and an estimated total value of £915,000, as set out in this report.

4)    the re-commissioning of a drug and alcohol prevention and recovery support service for people living in the community from an external provider for a period of five years and an estimated total value of £1,729,065, as set out in this report.

5)    the re-commissioning of 18 units of the Thrive complex needs accommodation and support service from an external provider for a period of 26 months and an estimated total value of £418,412, as set out in this report. 6) the commissioning of a service that helps older people (55 plus) who have deteriorating health and to access relevant support so they can continue to live independently for a period of 12 months and an estimated value of £794,233, as set out in this report.

10.4

Reasons for Decision

10.4.1

10.4.2

10.4.3

The proposals are aligned to a range of strategic objectives and help the council meet statutory duties in relation to social care and homelessness. The proposals mean that services will be in place that meet the needs of some of the most vulnerable adults in the city in a cost-effective way. This will be achieved by:

• Helping people stay in their own home for longer;

• Engaging rough sleepers into services and support;

• Providing a range of specialist supported accommodation types

• Helping people who are ready to out of supported accommodation to sustain independent living.

The services meet the needs of people who have multiple needs. Some of these people do not meet social care thresholds, but without a service their needs would deteriorate. Other people with a higher level of need would meet social care thresholds and meeting theses needs would be more costly than the current arrangements.

As well as providing important elements of support to individuals the services have a wider impact, such as improving joint work across different agencies and bringing a return on investment, such as additional funding and increasing the income of people supported.

10.5

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

10.5.1

10.5.2

Bring the services in house – this would be a lengthy process and could not be achieved in a way that would avoid loss of provision. It would be likely to be less cost effective than the current arrangements because income streams that are available to the commissioned services are not available to Sheffield City Council. The providers have access to accommodation which is not available to the Council so the services provider an increase in capacity available to our overall homelessness and housing support system in Sheffield. Accommodation based providers often own or lease their buildings so the Council would need to find ways to buy, build, or take on new leases for suitable properties which would create delay and additional cost.

End the contracts – This would leave 529 vulnerable people without a service. In view of the range of services and the level of needs of the people it would put pressures on housing and social care budgets. Many of the people using the services would, if not supported, be subject to our duties to rehome under the Homeless Act. It is likely that fewer people overall would get an alternative service and the overall cost would be greater. It is likely:

• Some people would be placed in residential care at a much greater cost than their current provision. Some people in the complex needs service were formally in residential care.

• Some people would be placed in bed and breakfast or costly provision that is not regulated, their needs would not be met as well as they are being under current arrangements.

• Some people would be likely to be left without a service given that 529 people would be negatively impacted.