Issue - meetings

Review the commissioning process and desired outcomes, including how demand for each service is identified and monitored before contracts are awarded and while in operation, selection criteria for providers and how delivery performance is monitored, what the commissioning strategy means for family centres and family support programmes and how it contributes to ‘Getting to Good’.

Witnesses:

Sinead Mooney, Cabinet Member for Children and Families

Rachael Wardell, Executive Director – Children, Families and Learning

Lucy Clements, Interim Director of Integrated Childrens Commissioning

Matt Ansell, Director for Family Resilience and Safeguarding

Eamonn Gilbert, Assistant Director – Commissioning

Sue Turton, Service Manager Early Help Partnerships

Key points made in the discussion:

1. The Chair noted that Children’s Services accounted for a quarter of the Council’s £1.1 billion revenue budget. The Chair asked of the £250 million spent by Children’s Services, what percentage was spent on third party contractors. The Interim Director of Integrated Children’s Commissioning offered to provide a written response.

2. The Interim Director of Integrated Childrens Commissioning gave a summary of the paper and stressed the importance of understanding the needs of the population. This understanding informed the service model and commissioning model. The Interim Director noted that financial constraints and increasing complex needs post Covid had been challenging for the service. The report also focused on family centres and family resilience 1-1 family support models that worked together with local services. The Interim Director shared positive verbal feedback from inspectors from the SEND inspection in September 2023.

3. A Member asked following the award of a contract, was it sensible that past performance was not considered when commissioning The Interim Director explained that the procurement process must be fair to all bidders. As part of the quality questions, providers could input their positive past performance to demonstrate their knowledge.

4. A Member asked the Interim Director what the realities and challenges of delivering commissioning services were. The Interim Director noted that commissioning collaborated with operational teams who had a good grasp of operating models and challenges. She discussed the community research and outreach on early help, co-designed community sessions, partnership forums, market engagement events which shared the proposed commissioning model - all ways the commissioning team continued to meet the needs of Surrey residents.

5. A Member asked how challenges with commissioning were being addressed. The Assistant Director of Commissioning noted that now was the opportunity for innovation. Mainstream schools’ new funding systems had been introduced to allow schools the flexibility to deliver based on individual student’s needs. The Assistant Director emphasised that the private market was used and there must be a balance between what the service wanted and needed and what providers wanted and needed.

6. A Member noted that many charities providing Short Breaks would not agree that children’s needs were being met. The Interim Director agreed that Commissioning must meet the needs of residents and noted the Member’s frustration. The Chair noted that she has received similar feedback from charities as well and hoped that collaboration could be improved going forward.

7. A Member asked how barriers faced by smaller partners like local charities were tackled so that they were not disadvantaged. The Assistant Director of Commissioning answered that there was an effort to not create artificial thresholds, but the quality of providers was the biggest consideration. The voluntary sector usually had a good local footprint,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41