DWP/ESF Programme for Families with Multiple Problems

REPORT TO:
Executive Board
DATE: 17 th November 2011
REPORTING OFFICER:
SUBJECT:
WARDS:
Strategic Director, Children & Enterprise
DWP / ESF Programme for Families with Multiple
Problems
Borough-wide
1.0 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
1.1 To inform the Executive Board of the outcome of the tender process for the
DWP/ESF Programme for Families with Multiple Problems, to clarify progress to
date and to confirm next steps.
1.2 To report on the current implications of the DWP decision and Halton’s proposed
response.
2.0 RECOMMENDATION: That the report is discussed and actions agreed.
3.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION
3.1 Background to the DWP / ESF Programme
Please refer to the previous report (August 2011) for background information on
the DWP / ESF Programme.
3.2 DWP contract – preferred bidder
3.2.1 Notification has now been received from DWP regarding their preferred bidder for
the ESF programme for families with multiple problems. The provider for the 10
Local Authorities within our CPA (Contract Package Area) will be Reed in
Partnership: Reed will therefore deliver their programme across Blackburn with
Darwen, Blackpool, Cumbria, Halton, Knowsley, Lancashire, Liverpool, Sefton, St
Helens and Wirral.
3.2.2 Reed has been singularly successful in this process, as they have secured 4 of
the 12 contracts available nationally: presumably their bid was extremely
competitive, given that 50% of the contract scoring was on cost alone. Neither of

the Prime providers currently involved in delivery of the Work Programme in
Halton (Ingeus and A4e) have been successful in securing any of the contracts.
3.2.3 Of the 35 providers on the DWP Framework, only 8 have been awarded ESF
contracts: Reed’s success in particular has excited some comment from
unsuccessful providers, noting Reed’s status as an ‘obvious winner’ and
including a commitment to ‘watch future framework commissioning with interest
to see how this plays out across the Framework members’.
3.3 Reed’s ESF Model
3.3.1 As noted previously, Reed were clear from the outset that they would not
consider subcontracting delivery of the programme to LAs, although our CPA
was equally clear in expressing our collective preference for the opposite.
Unfortunately the view of our CPA has not prevailed with either Reed or DWP.
There has been a slight change from Reed’s original position, in that their model
requires that 10% of its supply chain end-to-end provision is delivered via public
sector providers: in our CPA this will largely be through Knowsley MBC, whose
current family support model has been assessed by Reed to be a 'good fit' with
their approach.
3.3.2 A copy of Reed’s ESF Programme (The Families Programme) is available, which
sets out the support they will provide to families, their delivery approach, the
supply chain of public, private and voluntary sector partners they will be working
with and how they will work with key stakeholders across Cumbria, Lancashire,
Merseyside and Halton.
3.4 Progress to date
3.4.1 As Reed is in the process of appointing its Local Authorities’ Liaison Manager for
our CPA, the additional information that I have obtained to date regarding The
Families Programme has been extremely limited. For example, I have asked
specifically about planned service delivery via Reed’s Health and Well-Being
Professionals and Family Workshops and have been informed that their team will
include Occupational Psychologists and CBT Therapists – however, further
details are currently unavailable due to the Liaison Manager not yet being in post.
However, I was advised that this model has been used by Reed in delivery of
their JCP Contracts in London and this is how they know that ‘it works’.
3.4.2 DWP will hold a Local Engagement Meeting (LEM) for our CPA during the week
beginning 21 st November 2011. Prior to the start of the LEM, DWP will also hold
a pre-meeting with LAs.
3.4.3 DWP has advised that, at the LEM, Reed will give a presentation to demonstrate
their delivery model, Jobcentre Plus will inform LAs who their key contacts will be

for this ESF provision and their role in the process, and DWP will talk about how
the ESF contracts will be managed and also provide some key contacts. There
will also be an opportunity for LAs to have a short session at the meeting to
discuss specific concerns and identified issues.
3.5 Next Steps
3.5.1 The collective response of our CPA to DWP’s planned structure regarding both
the LEM and pre-meeting has been to note that, as our CPA area is so diverse, a
single presentation may be difficult to deliver effectively. We have suggested
instead that we have sufficient time during the sessions to conduct a robust Q&A
regarding the preferred bidder’s approach and communication plans.
3.5.2 Our CPA is negotiating with DWP regarding LAs charging a ‘finder’s fee’ for the
identification of families referred to Reed’s ESF programme in order to ensure full
cost recovery.
4.0 POLICY IMPLICATIONS
4.1 Although this is not the outcome our CPA has worked towards, the positives are
that the LA will not hold any responsibility for achieving targets/outcomes (either
to Reed or DWP) and has an opportunity to utilise the provision to complement
and enhance our existing services, as we would with a new commissioned
service.
4.2 Potentially, the delivery of a broad range of targeted and specialist support to
families with multiple problems via Reed’s Families Programme could influence
the type and volume/level of services that are commissioned and/or delivered by
HBC. This will depend upon the quality and impact of Reed’s provision and the
extent to which it can be embedded to align with our existing processes and
structures. At best, the ESF provision could add value to existing services and
‘free up’ other resources within the borough, thus benefiting our communities.
4.3 Linked to 4.0.2, over time there may be potential implications for Halton’s
Workforce Development Strategy and staffing/other workforce-related activity.
4.4 If the additional ESF resource achieves its aims, there will potentially be policy
implications regarding Halton’s Child and Family Poverty Strategy.
4.5 Halton will negotiate directly with Reed to ensure that local services are not
duplicated or compromised by the ESF programme, as advised by DWP. We will
also work towards shaping Reed’s service delivery to ensure that it aligns with
Halton’s priorities and adds value to our provision.

4.6 Our monitoring and tracking systems will also ensure that we can map the impact
upon families of Reed’s service delivery; if this incurs increased or additional
costs to our services, DWP has advised LAs that they should not continue
referring families to the provision and should inform them of these concerns.
5.0 OTHER IMPLICATIONS
None identified.
6.0 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COUNCIL’S PRIORITIES
6.1 Children and Young People in Halton
These will relate specifically to service provision and outcomes for children and
young people who are living in families identified as having multiple problems, with
particular reference to 4.0.2 and 4.0.3.
6.2 Employment, Learning and Skills in Halton
These will relate particularly to the work of Halton People into Jobs and linked
services, with specific reference to the delivery and outcomes of the Work
Programme given the formal pathway and inter-relationship between the Work
Programme and the ESF provision.
6.3 A Healthy Halton
These will relate to the potential impact of services delivered as part of Reed’s
Families Programme. The limited information available to date suggests that this
will relate particularly to Mental Health and Emotional Well-being.
6.4 A Safer Halton
There are no direct implications arising from this recommendation.
6.5 Halton’s Urban Renewal
There are no direct implications arising from this recommendation.
7.0 RISK ANALYSIS
7.1 Key Risks and Control Measures
7.1.1 Implementation of robust and appropriate safeguarding policies, procedures and
protocols will be required for both Reed in Partnership, and for all organisations
and individuals subcontracted by Reed to work with families referred to the
programme, in respect of both children and young people and vulnerable adults.
It is a requirement that this is in place prior to the referral of any families to The

Families Programme. The control measure is the immediate consultation with
Halton’s Safeguarding Children and Safeguarding Adults Boards and subsequent
adherence to their guidance and requirements.
7.1.2 The risk to families of experiencing inadequate service provision, lack of
appropriate assessment to evaluate progress and lack of coherent multi-agency
support to ensure optimum outcomes, together with the risk of fragmentation and
lack of cohesion in service delivery, requires the effective and comprehensive
alignment of The Families Programme with Halton’s existing and developing
structures and processes, most particularly across the Integrated Working
Support Teams within Team around the Family and Halton People into Jobs.
The control measure is the negotiation and development of formal agreements
with Reed prior to the referral of families to their programme, specifically relating
to referral pathways and quality assurance of service provision.
7.1.3 The risk to HBC of incurring costs associated with referring families to this
programme is currently being addressed at national level on behalf of all LAs by
Lancashire County Council, via a proposal to put in place a referral ‘finder’s fee’
to ensure full cost recovery. The control measure is the ongoing recording of all
LA costs associated with this programme and the exertion of collective pressure
upon both DWP and DfE to implement full cost recovery mechanisms.
7.1.4 The risk of this programme having a negative impact upon families which may
incur increased or additional costs to Halton’s statutory services. The control
measure is the monitoring and tracking of families referred to this provision, with
the objective of reporting concerns to DWP with a view to ceasing referrals; this
is in line with DWP advice to LAs.
7.2 Key Opportunities
7.2.1 There is significant potential to make the best use of the additional resources
available via The Families Programme in order to enhance and add capacity to
our service delivery across Halton.
As further information from Reed is required to determine the scope of this
provision, the proposals are not sufficiently significant at this stage to require a full
risk assessment.
8.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY ISSUES
The proposed actions will address the potential for equality and diversity issues
arising from the delivery of The Families Programme by ensuring that assessment
processes for referrals are equitable and conducted openly, transparently and with
families’ consent, and that access to the services available is based upon
identified need.

9.0 REASON(S) FOR DECISION
To ensure that the proposed actions can be agreed and implemented prior to the
implementation date.
10.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED
As DWP has awarded the contract for ESF Programmes for Families with Multiple
Problems to Reed in Partnership, the only viable option that is available to Halton
is to ensure as far as possible through the proposed actions that our communities
obtain maximum benefit from the provision and are safeguarded effectively.
11.0 IMPLEMENTATION DATE
DWP has advised that the implementation date of the ESF provision is 14 th
December 2011; however this may be delayed due to the need to establish
safeguarding protocols and other requirements with Reed in Partnership.
12.0 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS UNDER SECTION 100D OF THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ACT 1972
None under the meaning of the Act.