Hampshire County Council

Executive Member - Adult Social Care Item 2

1 September 2006

Authority to negotiate a single tender - Provision of Two Aftercare posts within the Hampshire Drug and Alcohol Team (DAAT) Area

Report by the Director of Adult Services

(Summary of CONFIDENTIAL decision)

1

Summary

1.1

The following decision is sought:

That authority be given to negotiate a single tender for the provision of two Aftercare Coordinator posts to form part of an existing Drugs Intervention Programme (DIP) service.

The existing DIP contract is due for competitive tendering in September 2008 (unless an extension is agreed) and the additional aftercare service will form an integral part of this tender.

2

Reason(s)

2.1

This decision supports the following Aims of the Corporate Strategy:

Aim 1 - maximising life opportunities

Aim 3 - achieving economic prosperity

Aim 4 - building strong and safe communities

Aim 5 - improving services

This service will ensure co-ordinated support is provided to drug users leaving the criminal justice system or community drug treatment services to reintegrate back into the community. The service will specifically focus on their needs in relation to Housing, Education, Training and Employment.

3

Other options considered and rejected

3.1

Do nothing:

This option would result in uncoordinated services being delivered on an ad-hoc basis in different localities, which would not support the clients who need access to a full range of mainstream services.

3.2

Posts hosted by Adult Services:

This option would provide the Pan Hampshire approach and infrastructure required for the service, however following discussions with Adult Services it was rejected on the basis that a single tender option with the current DIP provider offered the best solution in terms of efficiency and continuity and as an integrated DIP service, would make future tendering processes more streamlined.

3.3

Posts hosted by a Health Partnership Trust:

This option would not provide the Pan Hampshire approach and infrastructure required for the service and was also rejected on the basis that a single tender option with the current DIP provider offered the best solution in terms of efficiency and continuity and as an integrated DIP service, would make future tendering processes more streamlined.

4

Conflicts of interest declared by the decision-maker or other Executive Member consulted

4.1

None

5

Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee

5.1

None

6

Reason(s) for the matter being dealt with if urgent

6.1

Not Applicable

Approved by:

..........................

Date of decision:

.........................

Councillor Patricia Banks