Purpose

This report seeks approval to directly award a contract for the provision of the Family Healthy Behaviours service, which delivers targeted early intervention and prevention support to families to improve health outcomes, reduce inequalities, and support demand management across health and care systems in Croydon. The service aligns with the Council’s Public Health priorities, including tackling obesity, improving lifestyle behaviours, and supporting vulnerable families to achieve sustained wellbeing outcomes.

The proposed contract will be awarded in accordance with the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023 (PSR) Direct Award Process C, on the basis that the incumbent provider is demonstrably the most suitable provider to continue delivering the services, given their established delivery model, integration with local systems, and proven ability to achieve the required outcomes. The service has demonstrated positive impact to date, including improved engagement with hard-to-reach families, measurable behaviour change outcomes, and contribution to reducing longer-term demand on statutory services. Continuity of provision is therefore critical.

The direct award represents a compliant and proportionate approach, balancing value for money, service continuity, and strategic alignment. Approval of the recommendations will enable the Council to maintain delivery of a high-performing preventative service while longer-term commissioning arrangements are considered.

Decision

Agree the strategy to directly award, in accordance with the Provider Selection Regime Direct Award Process C, a contract for the provision of the Family Healthy Behaviours service for a period of 2 years with an estimated total value of £613,486 excluding VAT to the incumbent provider, Health, Exercise, Nutrition for the Really Young (HENRY).

Reasons for the decision

The direct award is required to ensure continuity of a critical preventative public health service that supports families to achieve and sustain healthier behaviours. In line with the Provider Selection Regime Direct Award Process C, the current provider is considered the most suitable provider to continue delivering the service, having demonstrated robust performance, strong partnership working, and effective engagement with priority cohorts. A break in service provision would disrupt established pathways and risk deterioration in outcomes for residents.

The proposed route is compliant with the Provider Selection Regime and represents a proportionate and value-for-money approach, taking into account the provider’s existing capability, service quality, and integration within the local system. It also enables the Council to maintain service stability while further work is undertaken to assess the outcomes achieved over the next two-year period and review future commissioning intentions and longer-term procurement options.

Alternative options considered

Option

Feasibility

Benefits and Drawbacks

Overall Assessment

1. Tender out services (full competition)

Timescales: Likely challenging – full procurement (including approvals, tender period, evaluation, standstill, mobilisation) may exceed required timelines.

Legal/procurement: Fully compliant under procurement regulations.

Market availability: Market exists but limited number of providers with equivalent HENRY model and evidence base.

Council capacity: High resource requirement (procurement, evaluation, mobilisation).

Service continuity risk: High – transition to new provider may create disruption (TUPE, retraining, pathway redesign).

Non-financial constraints: Potential safeguarding and continuity concerns during transition.

Benefits:
• Promotes competition and transparency
• Potential for innovation and value for money
• Aligns with procurement best practice

Drawbacks:
• High transition risk impacting vulnerable families
• Loss of established relationships and trust
• Resource-intensive and time-consuming
• Limited market may reduce meaningful competition

Not Recommended – High risk to service continuity and timelines; limited added value given specialised nature of HENRY model

2. Bring service in-house

Timescales: Not feasible within required timeframe due to recruitment and service setup.

Legal: Permissible but significant HR and organisational implications.

Market availability: N/A.
Council capacity: Insufficient – would require new workforce, training, systems, and programme licensing (HENRY model).

Service continuity risk: Very high – risk of service interruption during setup.
Non-financial constraints: Need for specialist training and safeguarding infrastructure.

Benefits:
• Greater control over service delivery
• Potential alignment with internal strategies

Drawbacks:
• Lack of existing expertise in HENRY delivery
• High upfront and ongoing costs
• Significant implementation risk
• Loss of established specialist provider capability

Not Recommended – Not deliverable within timeframe; high risk and cost with limited benefit

3. Do nothing (let contract lapse)

Timescales: No procurement required.
Legal: Would fail to meet commissioning responsibilities and public health objectives.

Market availability: N/A.
Council capacity: N/A.
Service continuity risk: Critical – service would cease.

Non-financial constraints: Likely breach of strategic and public health commitments.

Benefits:
• No immediate financial spend

Drawbacks:
• Loss of preventative early years and family support services
• Negative impact on service users (families, children)
• Increased long-term demand and costs elsewhere
• Reputational risk to Council
• Misalignment with public health and inequality strategies

Not Recommended – Unacceptable impact on outcomes, risk, and statutory/public health priorities

4. Tender with same budget as 4 years ago

Timescales: Similar constraints as full tender; unlikely to meet deadlines.
Legal: Compliant.

Market availability: Limited – funding level may deter bidders or reduce quality.

Council capacity: High resource requirement.

Service continuity risk: High if provider changes.

Non-financial constraints: Inflation pressures and workforce costs reduce viability.

Benefits:
• Maintains procurement compliance
• Budget certainty

Drawbacks:
• Funding unlikely to reflect inflation ? risk to service quality
• Reduced provider interest / competition failure
• Potential reduction in service volume or outcomes
• Same transition risks as Option 1

Not Recommended – Financial envelope not viable; risks service quality and procurement failure

5.Direct Award via PSR Direct Award Route C – Preferred Option

Timescales: Highly feasible – fastest route; avoids lengthy procurement process.

Legal/procurement: Compliant under Provider Selection Regime (PSR) where all the criteria are met. This route is compliant with procurement regulations (Provider Selection Regime)

Market availability: Existing provider already delivering specialist HENRY model; continuity maintained.
Council capacity: Low additional resource required.

Service continuity risk: Minimal – no transition required. Risk is mitigated by using PSR Direct Award C, providing continuation of provider

Non-financial constraints: Supports continuity of safeguarding, workforce, and established pathways.

Benefits:
• Service continuity for vulnerable families
• Maintains established relationships and outcomes
• Reduced mobilisation and transition costs
• Quick to implement
• Small uplift helps address inflation pressures

Drawbacks:
• Reduced market competition and price tension
• Potential challenge risk (requires robust justification)
• Risk of provider dependency / lock-in

Recommended – Best balance of continuity, value, and deliverability; aligns with PSR and minimises risk while sustaining outcomes

Recommended Delivery Option

Option 5 is recommended for the reasons set out above.