Members will be aware that contracts with a total estimated value and above must be reported to the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  Reports must be provided at an early stage of the process once a draft procurement strategy and specifications have been developed for consideration by Members.

The report of the Director of Public Health, (Document “A”) outlines, for Members’ information, existing Welfare Advice services across the district as funded by Bradford Council; details current delivery systems and recommends that a new procurement process is instigated to identify future service options and needs.

Recommended –

That the contents of Document “A” be noted and the release of the contract for procurement under the Council’s standing orders be agreed.

(Sarah Possingham – 07582 100244)

Members were reminded that contracts with a total estimated value of £2 million and above must be reported to the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  Reports must be provided at an early stage of the process once a draft procurement strategy and specifications have been developed for consideration by Members.

The report of the Director of Public Health, (Document “A”) outlined, for Members’ information, existing Welfare Advice services across the district as funded by Bradford Council; detailed current delivery systems and recommended that a new procurement process was instigated to identify future service options and needs.

The report revealed that commissioned Welfare Advise services in Bradford were delivered through five separate contracts. Four were constituency based (Shipley and Keighley were combined) and one was for people with long term and/or complex health conditions. There were four lead providers who employed a combination of sub-contractors and/or partners to support service delivery. These were;

Bradford and Airedale Citizens Advice Bureau and the Law Centre, Equality Together, Family Action and St Vincent De Paul/CHAS.  Full details of the providers were appended to the report.

Members were advised that the service was commissioned in 2016/17 for a period of 4 years plus one. In 2020/21, due to COVID, contracts were extended by one year to end on the March 31^st 2023. A new commissioning process had started to identify and source future services. 

It was explained that Transformation Pilots had been commenced with a consultancy firm in 2018/19 to explore demand in respect of commissioned Welfare vice service and the relationship between those and those of the Council’s own Customer Contacts service.  The results of those pilots were detailed in Document “A”.  Details of a further three pilots starting shortly and to test the assumptions made were also contained in the report.

The report revealed that there may be the facility to extend the existing contracts for a further 3-6 months to allow time for a more robust new procurement process to be delivered and for the outcome of transformation pilots to be evaluated. 

Responses to a public survey and stakeholder event were reported.  The survey had received 450 returns and showed there was a keen interest in the services for the future.

A Member believed that a response of 450 across the district was meaningless and suggested that future consultations should be adequately resources. 

He felt it was difficult to consider alternative options from the information in the report and he questioned in there were potential economies of scale by reducing the five contracts.   In response it was confirmed that this was possible as there were four lead providers for the contracts but that could have a negative impact and smaller organisations could be lost.  City Centre services were welcomed but people did want locally based services. In previous years there had been over 20 contracts and, therefore, higher management costs. 

It was explained that anti-poverty groups were speaking to people with lived experience and were currently pulling together their findings.  Welfare advice was not only needed by people on benefits and the needs of people who were in work but were having to use food banks to keep afloat was being analysed.

A Member questioned existing contracts appended to the report and requested a breakdown of funding in Bradford West.  It was agreed that the information would be provided after the meeting.

It was questioned how city centre services worked together and how residents with issues requiring contact with different services were resolved.  It was explained that the Council’s Customer Contact Centre could fast track such issues.

Concern was expressed that people on Universal Credit or those trying to sort out debt would be unable to afford trips to the city centre to access support.  It was questioned what, within the proposals, would support those residents.  It was also queried what level of support was available to people who had lost their Disability Living Allowance.  It was explained that there was no ‘magic bullet’ for those issues but they were noted and would be considered when working with housing and revenues and benefits services. Equality Together, an organisation for disabled people, their carers and families, aimed to support people with long term health conditions. 

It was questioned if there was anything contained in the contracts to ensure advisors supported people with future needs and would there be follow up with residents once their initial issues had been dealt with.  It was agreed that this was a good suggestion to incorporate.

A Member reported that General Practitioners were funded to record people with learning disabilities and were paid for that register whether residents used their services of not.  It was suggested that those people registering with the GPs could be provided with welfare advice.  It was explained, in response, that GPs had previously had access to welfare advice sessions in their surgeries and that provision was well used in some and not in others.  Much of that had be removed when funding was cut and providers had to look at where they were needed most.   In response the Member requested that as those people were known to GPs and their funding was restricted to one year only, consideration should be given to timely measures to support those people prior to them losing funds and having to start the lengthy application process again. 

How service provider’s performance was monitored was questioned and it was explained that although service usage by postcode was recorded outcomes were not documented within the contract terms.  The new contracts would contain strengthened monitoring arrangements to include for example the number of evictions prevented or immigration cases assisted.   It was questioned how it was known if services were providing value for money and it was explained that a formula was devised when the contracts were let seven years ago.  There was some monitoring of outcomes and additional work on that was being conducted.  Assurances were provided that the contracts would not be let on the same basis again.  In response the Member who had raised monitoring issues expressed disappointment that there were not basic indicators and that assurances could not be provided that the contracts had fulfilled what they were intended to do.

It was questioned if people who accessed services outside of their constituency were recorded in their home constituency of where they had accessed help.  It was also suggested that when the new contracts were awarded they specified the goals and aims of that contract and that those issue were measured.  It was recommended, for example, that details of follow up for time expired support be included.

In response it was reported that every organisation providing welfare advice operated case management systems that could identify individuals; it would be possible to integrate those statistics into other management systems and could include indicators to provide follow up support.   Management systems also provided postcode information on people who had used services but this was not specific for individual services.  The systems removed double counting to ensure records of people accessing were accurate.   In response to questions about systems to ensure people accessing services outside of their local constituency could be flagged to question why they were not using local services it was reported that systems were sophisticated and could highlight if people were accessing through various routes. 

A Member referring to difficulties in accessing appointments requested that contracts be devised to ensure easy access to services.  She reported her experience of services closing due to staff sickness or staff leaving early for the day and requested that performance indicators include hours of operation and availability.

Resolved –

(1)  This Committee request that the comments and suggestions raised by members be considered during this procurement process.

(2)  This Committee requests that a review of its previous contracted delivery, be undertaken and presented to this Committee.

(Sarah Possingham – 07582 100244)