Decision - Family Group Conference Review Proposals

49.1         The Committee considered a report of the Interim Director of Children’s Services providing information and detailing options for the future delivery of Family Group Conferences for decision by the Committee.

49.2         It was noted that Family Group Conferences are an internationally recognised and evidence-based method of family based decision making for children and young people in crisis where a plan needs to be made for their welfare. They are now required under the Public law Outline, the legal procedure to be followed when considering whether children should be brought into the care of the local authority.

49.3    In Brighton & Hove Family Group Conferences (FGC) had been provided by a specialist independent provider since October 2002. Family Group Conferences aim to divert children and young people from public care and maintain them within their families and communities. This is a key objective in improving outcomes for children and young people, and the Value for Money programme in Children’s Services.

49.4    The Interim Head of Delivery, Children and Families stated that there were advantages and disadvantages in opting to tender for this service or to bring the service in house and these were set out in the report. The yearly rate of referral had been high with half the years allocation used within the first four months of the year. The current provider had agreed to accept 105 referrals during 2012/13, this had indicated however that there was an issue with the current arrangements.

49.5    On the basis of cautious comparative cost indicators, the initial review had indicated that Brighton and Hove could provide a higher number of FCG s in house than provided for within the existing contract and would support the value for money prevention outcomes of stopping situations escalating, maintaining children safely with their families and communities and preventing children ending up in care.

49.6    Subsequently, the potential cost and outcome analysis had been shared with the current provider, who had offered to make management efficiencies to increase the number of proposals which could be taken and managed. This was not currently a contract proposal, but if it were to become one would need to be tested on the open market, it would deliver a lower unit cost than the one currently a in-house service. Advise of the Commissioning and Procurement teams had been that the current contract could not simply be extended again as it had been in place for 10 years and required significant updating. The choice was either to move to in house provision, which did not require a tender process or to develop a full re-tendering process. In consultation with the Strategic Commissioner, an estimate had been made of the costs of the tender process, including officer time which would be 10,500.

49.7    Councillor Simson sought clarification regarding the potential costs of the tender process and as to the potential number of providers. It was confirmed that there were between 5 - 10 providers in the south east region. The detailed costings document set out the various comparators, the costs would include the costs of drawing up a spec, advertising following consultation with focus groups.

49.8    Rachel Travers, Amaze stated that she was of the view that an independent provider was ultimately preferable as they were independent of the authority and could be viewed as “neutral” by families who might be less willing to deal with statutory agencies. The Interim Head of Delivery, Children and Families confirmed that if this service was placed in house it was intended that it would be delivered by the Friends and Families Team which would enable recipients to access a range of services whilst maintaining a degree of separation. A number of local authorities had this service provided by independent providers, it was important to maintain a vibrant voluntary sector and to protect jobs within that sector too.

49.9    The Chair, Councillor Shanks stated that ultimately this was a political decision. A decision had been taken by the Cabinet Member Meeting to explore whether or not the contract could be brought in house and the previous report and this follow up one indicated that as a viable option.

49.10  Councillor Simson stated that she considered that it would be preferable to tender as by doing so providers could provide details regarding the full range of services/number of cases they could take on within the spec drawn up.

49.11  Councillor Pissaridou stated that she was concerned that it was difficult to compare the pros and cons of providing an outsourced or in house service as it was difficult to compare them financially it was like comparing apples and pears. She considered however, that the perceived independence of an external provider by service users was important. Councillor Gilbey and Wealls concurred in that view.

49.12  Councillor Powell enquired whether consideration would be given to Tupeing Day Break staff across if the service was brought in house. It was explained that if this service was tendered externally that would be an open process and Day Break might not provide the winning bid. If this work was brought in house, whether any staff would be Tupied over would depend on who was employed and their role, this would not be automatic but would need to be considered.

49.13  Councillor Buckley was of the view that there were benefits to both options, however, on balance she considered it was preferable for the service to be brought in house as this would enable the service to be streamlined and she considered that the independence of the service could be still be maintained in house.

49.14  A vote was taken and on a vote of 6 to 4 Members voted that the service should be retendered for.

49.15  RESOLVED – (1) That the Committee has considered the financial and comparative information between the current outsourced arrangement for Family Group Conferences, against the financial and comparative information on the provision of an in-house service, alongside demand and quality indicators, discussions with other services across the local authority, and further information from the current provider (set out in appendix 1 to the report); and

            (2) The Committee resolves to retender the service to external providers on the current financial allocation, with the Director of Children’s Services having delegated authority to determine the outcome of the tender; and

            (3) Once the decision of the Committee is known, a timetable be developed to ensure continuity of provision.