Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 19
19
Accepted
HMPPS began accepting applications for a provider to run the Medway secure school in October...
Recommendation
HMPPS began accepting applications for a provider to run the Medway secure school in October 2018 and received five applications. As the National Audit Office noted in its report, HMPPS used a DfE application process for academies (free schools)—rather than the regulations that govern public procurements—as they considered it the best option for attracting the right educationally-focused provider.64 The Ministry and HMPPS told us that they wanted to develop the provider market for secure schools, as well as encourage innovation and greater provider autonomy.65 Even with one or two secure schools they would ideally want to have more than one or two potential providers. HMPPS also said that it wanted to have a provider involved early on, to help with shaping its decisions on the nature of the service.66 Yet, its decision to appoint the provider early on to co-design the school was risky, as it did not have the legislation in place at that time that would permit a charity to run a secure school. It was only following discussions with the Charity Commission that it had realised such legislation was needed.67
Government Response Summary
The government will supplement the Funding Agreement with handbooks on finance, governance and assurance and use 'ladders of intervention' to manage provider performance, with Ofsted having regulatory powers.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
5. PAC conclusion: The Ministry and HMPPS are relying on a provider to deliver the new secure school model, but the approach they are taking is untested and there are insufficient safeguards in place. 5. PAC recommendation: The Ministry / HMPPS should set out how the Funding Agreement will incentivise the secure school provider to deliver high-quality care for all children in custody, including how they would manage underperformance or children being refused a place. 5.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: December 2022 5.2 The Funding Agreement (the legal contracting vehicle between the Ministry and secure school providers) will be supplemented by handbooks on finance, governance and assurance (setting out requirements and expectations on the secure school provider, including performance). The Funding Agreement package is being completed and will detail performance reporting and issue management. It will adapt the ‘ladders of intervention’ approach from the Department for Education to drive improvements, escalating through formal directions and termination where required. 5.3 In addition to these arrangements, the secure school will be accountable to its governing trust. There will be independent monitoring of the quality of care in place per Regulation 44 of the Children’s Home Regulations 2015 and Ofsted will have comprehensive regulatory powers under the Care Standards Act 2000 when the secure school opens. 5.4 As a registered children’s home, the secure school will have a statutory right to refuse a placement if it believes the child cannot be safely or properly accommodated or, when accommodating, it would have a detrimental impact on other children at the school. Clauses within the Funding Agreement will ensure the school is committed to providing a 49-bed 12 service suitable for the full range of the custody cohort, and that the statutory right to refuse is exercised appropriately. 5.5 The secure school provider has a legal obligation (per Section 10 of the Academies Act 2010) to consult the local community on whether it should enter into the Funding Agreement. This consultation must be concluded, and the findings considered prior to the Funding Agreement being signed.