1. NE12+ Collaborative (Phase Two)
28 September 2016
Provider engagement event (3) with
Ofsted registered Independent Children’s Residential Home Providers
Welcome

2. Welcome and housekeeping
Rhonda Eagle – Newcastle City Council

3. Update from Children’s Residential Homes Provider Event (2) 31.08.2016
Rhonda Eagle – Newcastle City Council

4. Update from Provider Event (2)
During this event, data was shared with Providers on:
Number of placements broken down by age and gender
Primary, secondary and tertiary needs
Number of placements made outside the North East region
Analysis of the needs across the region enabled us to have the group discussions regarding:
potential Lotting Structure
potential Core Service Requirements
Feedback after the event reinforced points raised during the event.

5. Update from Provider Event (2)
Feedback received during the Event
Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) should be a specific Lot.
Difficult to identify what additionality would be need to be offered by Providers to qualify as a specialist Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) provision, but data evidenced that CSE was a increasing consideration when making placements. Discussed whether we needed a separate Lot for CSE or whether it was more appropriate for the Core Service Requirements for Homes under all Lots to be able to support Children and Young People who have experienced or are at risk of CSE.
Recognition that Disabilities and Therapeutic Services cover a broad range of services therefore, would be better detailed in an Additional Services menu?

6. Update from Provider Event (2)
Feedback received during the Event (continued)
Emergency placements may be offered by a range of Providers, however they were not deemed to be a specific type of Lot.
Solo Placements may be offered by a range of Providers and may need to receive a suitable enhancement – it was deemed that these placements should not be purchased under a specific Lot.
There was some appetite for a ‘Block’ element within the solution, but a number of questions were raised regarding how this would work.
Feedback received after the Event
Some queries raised regarding whether all service elements discussed as potentially being in the Core Service Requirements should be delivered as a ‘minimum requirement’.

7. Update from Provider Event (2)
Feedback received after the Event (continued)
Feedback was received recommending that the new solution has flexibility to add new Providers/Homes throughout the life of the solution.
The final procurement solution has not been determined yet. Participating Organisations are keen to implement a solution that ensures:
sufficient choice to meet the needs of individual Children and Young People,
sufficient placement capacity for Participating Organisations,
the ability for new Providers/Homes to join the solution during its life, and
growth in the local market.
We will be considering this feedback very carefully and balancing it with the capacity of the Participating Organisations when determining the final solution.

8. Update from Provider Event (2)
Since Event 2, we have invited stakeholder organisations to meet with us to inform them of our plans and encourage their feedback
Independent Children’s Homes Association (ICHA) – meeting arranged with Newcastle for
The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) – proposed date of (waiting confirmation of attendance from Ofsted)
We continue to liaise with other Local Authority Commissioners to share their learning and ‘benchmark’ our thinking:
London
Tees Valley
West Sussex
White Rose
Keys Cross Regional Project

9. Proposed Lotting Structure and Core Service Requirements
Emma Bass – Newcastle City Council

10. Proposed Lotting structure
Placements in Independent Children’s Residential Homes
Lot 1
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (EBD)
Lot 2
Disabilities
Lot 3
Assessment / Intervention
Lot 1 – the term EBD rather than SEMH will be used to describe placements under this Lot as this terminology links to a Homes Ofsted registration.
Lot 2 – Disabilities was agreed to be a specific Lot as it was noted that Providers operating Homes for Children with Disabilities would have requirements in their Statement of Purpose and Ofsted registration additional to those for EBD Homes.
Lot 3 – introduced as a separate and distinct service. It is anticipated that Homes submitted for consideration into Lot 1 would not be the same Homes submitted for consideration of the specialist services required under Lot 3.
Lot 3 will require demonstrative use of a clear assessment model and placements will be time limited to a fixed, short period to inform longer term need.

11. Proposed Lotting structure
Lots that were removed from the initially proposed structure following consideration of feedback during and after the Event, and reasons why are:
SEMH with integrated therapeutic support – it was deemed more appropriate for a range of therapies to be added to Additional Services menu to enable placements to be tailored to the individual assessed needs of Children and Young People
CSE – it was considered essential that all placements need to have an element of CSE support within the Core Service Requirements. Additional needs as a result of CSE will be managed by the purchase of Additional Services
Solo Placements – as a number of Providers indicated they could potentially Provide solo placements, we will consider gathering information of Provider’s fees for these placements at point of tender

12. Proposed Lotting Structure
Previous Provider engagement has indicated that a Block element would be acceptable, but it has not been possible to define how this would work in practice. Considering relevant data/information, initial thinking is that Participating Organisations would expect any Block element to deliver a discount of £500-£600 per week per placement.
The Participating Organisations will continue to investigate the potential for the use of a Block Contract in future solutions.
Volume discounts have been considered further. Placing Authorities have determined that the cost of resources to manage arrangements at a regional level would negate any financial benefit achieved and would create an excessive administrative burden on both Placing Authorities and Providers.
It is proposed that the details of potential volume discounts will form part of the award criteria for individual Call-Offs.

13. Proposed Additional Services Menu
Additional Services Menu for Children’s Homes 1
Residential Care Officer (hourly rate) 2
Waking night (hourly rate) 3
Occupational Therapy 4
Physiotherapy 5
Speech and Language Therapy 6
Psychological Therapy 7
Travel (rate per mile for mileage additional to Core Service Requirements) 8
Counselling

14. Core Service Requirements
Have been written with consideration of:
National Framework Contract
NE6 Approved Provider List
TV Framework Agreement
Other Local Authority collaborative arrangements
Focused on Core Service Requirements for Lot 1 but there are still some areas to discuss with Providers later today.
Need to discuss with Providers what they think would be appropriate additional requirements under Lot 2 and Lot 3.

15. Becky Polito – Newcastle City Council
Financial Model
Becky Polito – Newcastle City Council

16. Financial Model
The Participating Local Authorities carried out a comprehensive review of data from a number of different sources in order to arrive at a proposed Financial Model.
We have considered information from:
current child-level costs paid by the Placing Authorities,
completed financial templates returned from Providers,
cost from other collaborative arrangements, including Tees Valley, South East Together and White Rose, and
the Narey report and other key documents.
With consideration of all of this information, Placing Authorities discussed and agreed an initial financial model to share and discuss with Providers today.

17. Proposed Financial Model - Lots
Cap fee 1
EBD
£2,700 2
Disabilities 3
Assessment / Intervention
£4,000
There is an acknowledgement that proposed fees for Lot 2 will need to increase, but we need to identify what additionality would be required for services delivered under this Lot.
Providers interested in Lot 2 would need to have disabilities identified within their Statement of Purpose.
Benchmarking data was used to identify a proposed fee for Lot 3.

18. Proposed Financial Model – Additional Services
Cap fee (hourly rate) 1
Residential Care Officer
£14.00 2
Waking night
£19.00 3
Occupational Therapy
£55.00 4
Physiotherapy
£50.00 5
Speech and Language Therapy 6
Psychological Therapy 7
Counselling
£40.00 8
Travel (rate per mile for mileage additional to Core Service Requirements)
Inland Revenue recommended rates

19. Comfort Break
15 minutes

20. Group discussions 30 minutes
Lotting structure. Initial thoughts on the proposed structure – Core Lots with Additional Services. How do you think this will enable a flexible approach to meet the needs of Children and Young People?
Lotting structure. What other Additional Services might be required?
Financial model. How will the proposed fees for Lot 1 enable
delivery of the proposed Core Service Requirements under this
Lot?
Financial model. What additional/different Core Service Requirements need to be in Lot 2 and Lot 3? How does this affect the proposed fees for Lot 2 and 3?

21. Rhonda Eagle – Newcastle City Council
Next Steps
Rhonda Eagle – Newcastle City Council

22. Next Steps
We will continue to gather feedback on the proposed Lotting Structure, Additional Service Menu, Financial Model and Core Service Requirements/Service Specification for Children's Homes
The end date for consultation on the Proposed Lotting Structure, Financial Model and Core Service Requirements will be detailed on papers that will be circulated through the NEPO Electronic Tendering Portal following this event.
In October 2016, having considered all feedback received from Children’s Homes Providers we will hold a fourth and final engagement event with Children’s Homes Providers. We will share our:
final Lotting Structure
final Financial Model
final Core Service Requirements

23. Indicative project timeline
Commissioning Phase
October and November 2016 – consultation with Residential Short Break Providers
November and December 2016 – consultation with non-maintained and Independent Special Schools and Colleges
January 2017 – Final proposal issued for consultation with the full market. Following consultation period, we will obtain approval for our commissioning model and close down the commissioning phase.
Procurement Phase
Tender Readiness sessions February 2017
Tender process March – August 2017
Implementation Phase
From 1 September 2017
Please note all dates are indicative and may change at any point

24. Close
Single point of contact:
Emma Bass
Support Officer – Collaborative Procurement, Newcastle City Council
Telephone: