Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: October 30, 2024

Purpose:

Content: 14.1 The Strategic Commissioning Manager for Direct Payments and Unpaid Carers introduced the report which detailed the position on Corporate Appointeeships, including issues with the current approach. The report made the case for change and highlighted potential options that were considered as part of an appraisal process. 14.2 RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Adult Health and Social Care Policy Committee:- Notes the review of Appointeeships and mitigations in response to the review. Approves the proposal for the Council’s in-house provider (Executor Services), to provide Corporate Appointeeships where appropriate, whilst making external purchases available where a best interest assessment, or other circumstance identifies this is required. Notes that a progress review update will be brought to Committee within 6 months of this Committee meeting, as part of the Safeguarding Delivery Plan Update to Committee. 14.3 Reasons for Decision 14.3.1 Option 2   This offers the best balance between value for money, quality assurance, and operational efficiency and addresses risks identified. Executor Services is one of the best value options available, whilst providing the outcomes that DWP requires of Appointeeships. This option also enables integrated approaches across social care, housing, and health to easily share, and update information. Finally, in the current financial climate, it is vital that we get best value, option 2 provides this. 14.4 Alternatives Considered and Rejected 14.4.1 All alternative options were set out in section 2.3 above. Please refer to this section for detail. 14.4.2 Alternative Option 1 Do nothing - This is because this is the current situation and has inherent risks as noted above and is not providing best value and quality assurance regards provision of Corporate Appointeeships. 14.4.3 Alternative Option 3 Executor Services as a default option and external providers on a RPL as the secondary option. Although this option gives more quality assurance, it is more expensive as it does not control the cost of external providers and likely to not comply with council standards. 14.4.4 Alternative Option 4 External providers on a Framework – although a satisfactory option it is not as cost effective as option 2.