7 Short Breaks Review - Children with Disabilities
PDF 232 KB
Report of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children and Young People is attached.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children and Young People presented a report seeking approval to progress the recommissioning of Bury's Short Breaks Service. The proposed model aims to strengthen early intervention, increase flexibility, and deliver a more responsive, outcomes-focused service aligned to the changing SEND demand in Bury. Early provider market engagement will inform a sustainable, inclusive, and high-quality model underpinned by a fair pricing framework.
Social Emotional Mental Health difficulties (SEMH), Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Moderate Learning Disability, and Specific Learning Disability account for over 80% of current SEND need. Parent and carer feedback is broadly positive but consistently highlights the need for more flexible, needs-led provision and improved community-based access. The current offer faces capacity pressures and does not fully reflect the diversity of presenting need.
Decision:
Cabinet:
Reasons for decisions:
Service delivery was currently concentrated with one principal provider, supplemented by three further commissioned providers and Direct Payments. Financial analysis shows substantial unit cost variation, from £6,764 (Direct Payments) to £21,378 (highest-cost provider), against a 2025/26 budget of £2.4m with a projected £28,000 overspend.
The current principal contract expires on the 31st August 2026. The provider, Action for Children Services Limited, has provisionally agreed to extend by a further 8 months to 31 March 2027, supporting a thorough engagement process. This extension is anticipated to be permissible under PA23 as a non-substantial modification that does not significantly alter the scope or economic balance of the contract.
The engagement phase will be cost-neutral, managed within existing resources. A full financial appraisal will accompany the final model recommendation.
Alternative options considered and rejected:
1. Maintain current model
Advantage- No additional procurement resource required.
Disadvantage- Reduced capacity, rising costs, market fragility, procurement compliance risk. Not recommended.
2. Redesign without engagement
Advantage- Faster to implement initially.
Disadvantage- No market intelligence; high risk of undeliverable or unaffordable model. Not recommended.
3. Redesign through structured engagement (Preferred)
Advantage- Informed by market capability; supports sustainability and improved outcomes.
Disadvantage- Requires time and resource investment during engagement phase.