Minutes:
The
Committee scrutinised the following matters:
Cabinet
Board Proposals
8.1 Early Intervention and Prevention Reserved Lots – Contract
Extension
The Committee received the report on the proposal to extend
the two partnerships with Calan DVS and NSPCC
respectively, until 31 March 2017, to deliver enhanced services in the areas of
Domestic Violence and Thriving Families (Reserved Lots), as detailed within the
circulated report.
Members were provided with a summary of the current
arrangements and progress to date. It was noted that contract monitoring was
undertaken and it indicated that the current partnership agreements represent
significantly better value for money than competitively tendering a
‘standalone’ service at this time. It was highlighted that these services were
important for early intervention.
Delegated authority was being requested for the
Head of Participation to extend the agreements for a year, taking into account
any guidance and instructions issued by Welsh Government. Officers had
discussed this approach with Welsh Government and had recently received
confirmation that the Welsh Government would approve the extension of the
partnership arrangements.
Members asked what was meant by the term ‘Reserved
Lots’. Officers explained that in the previous financial year a number of
service areas went out to tender and these particular lots were reserved due to
unknown service specifications.
Following scrutiny, the Committee was supportive of the
proposals to be considered by the Cabinet Board.
8.2 Contract between Hillside and Cefn Saeson Comprehensive School
The Committee received the report to approve consultation
on further developing the existing agreement between Neath Port Talbot Council
and Cefn Saeson Secondary
School in regards to Hillside Secure Children’s Home, as detailed within the
circulated report.
Members were informed that an agreement between the Council
and Cefn Saeson to provide
strategic and operational support to manage educational provision at Hillside
Secure Children’s Home had been approved in April 2014. The proposal was to
consult on building on the current agreement to enhance it and strengthen the
education provision at Hillside. It was highlighted that this proposal was in
line with Estyn’s recommendations to further develop
the partnership and have more formal arrangements. If agreed there would be a
30 day consultation period with the education department at Hillside and Cefn Saeson.
Members queried what was meant by the term ‘increased co-operation’.
Officers explained that it referred to taking the arrangements further and Cefn Saeson employing the
Hillside educational staff so they would be managed by a well-run mainstream
school. It was highlighted that the arrangements had been recognised as being
unique in the United Kingdom.
Members noted that the report outlined the benefits
for Hillside teachers and it was asked would it also be a positive experience
for the Cefn Saeson Staff.
Members were informed that it would offer the teachers from Cefn
Saeson different experiences to deal with challenging
behaviour and there were Continual Professional Development opportunities. Good
practice would also be shared between Hillside and Cefn
Saeson staff and opportunities for staff to reflect
on their own practice. It was highlighted that Cefn Saeson had achieved good results last year and the
partnership with Hillside had not been detrimental to this.
Members noted that the report referred to a
possible management fee and queried who would audit this. Officers explained
that there a Hillside Improvement Board had been in place since 2013 and this
Board would oversee such arrangements.
Members highlighted that the proposal was for
Hillside educational staff to be transferred to the employment of Cefn Saeson School and the
current operational running costs that Hillside allocated to support Education
Department would also be transferred. Members asked if there was any risk that
the Hillside finances could be used to bridge potential deficits in Cefn Saeson’s budget and have
knock on effects for Hillside, such as redundancies. Officers recognised that
such issues would need to be resolved and safeguards built into the final
agreement, which would be brought back for consideration by Members. Officers
were satisfied that the proposals would be cost neutral. It was highlighted
that staffing issues would be a decision for the management of the school and
their professional expertise.
Members noted that when the original agreement had
been put forward there had been proposals to go out to contract after two years
and asked if any other community schools had been approached. Officers informed
them that a good relationship had been established with Cefn
Saeson and the partnership had been successful. Going
out to contract would protract the process and the current proposals were a
pragmatic solution.
Following scrutiny, the Committee was supportive of the
proposals to be considered by the Cabinet Board.
8.3 Family Support Services – Family Action Support Team Contract
Extension 1 April 2016 – 31 March 2017 and Family Action Support Team Service
Tender
The Committee received the report seek approval to extend
the current contract arrangements with Action for Children for a period of 12
months from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 and to commission, tender
and procure a new Family Action Support Team service from 1 April 2017, as
detailed within the circulated report.
Members were reminded of the background to the current
arrangements and were informed that all contract targets had been exceeded and
the pilot had been successful. Members noted that when the original contract
arrangements had been agreed in December 2014 it had been proposed that it
would go out to tender after the completion of the pilot. It was asked why this
proposal had been extended. Officers explained that in the first six months of
the pilot the service was not working effectively, so the Council worked with
the organisation to develop an action plan to improve the service. The service
was now working well and the point of undertaking a pilot was to test it to
ensure it worked. The amendments to the pilot had resulted in this extension
being required to ensure there was no disruption to the delivery of the service
whilst the tendering exercise was undertaken.
Following scrutiny, the Committee was supportive of
the proposals to be considered by the Cabinet Board.