Co-Design: Transition Plans with Children and Young People
How to draft co-designed transition plans for children and young people that score 5/5. Co-design protocol, named milestones, lived-experience evidence.
Image: Unsplash (free to use)
Co-design. The scored discipline for children and young people transitioning from one care setting to another. The marks live in the named co-design protocol, the named milestones and the lived-experience evidence. This blog walks through the drafting pattern.
This blog sits within our local authority tenders hub, which maps the standard scoring weightings, statutory anchors and post-2023 Supported Accommodation Regulations procurement patterns for children's services.
The procurement context matters. Children's services procurement runs under the Procurement Act 2023 Schedule 5 Light Touch Regime in most cases; the standstill (Alcatel) period preserves the unsuccessful bidder's challenge route on contested scoring lines. Co-design has become one of the most contested scoring lines in the children's residential and supported accommodation registers because placement breakdown is now read as a system-cost risk by both Ofsted inspectors and procurement evaluators.
What is co-design in a transition context?
A structured collaboration. The young person, the corporate parent or significant adult, the social worker, the named key worker and the receiving service together shape the transition plan. Not consultation; co-authorship.
The statutory frame sits across Children Act 1989 Section 22(4) (duty to ascertain wishes and feelings), the Children and Social Work Act 2017 Section 1 corporate parenting principles, and the Care Leavers (England) Regulations 2010 Regulation 7 pathway plan duty.
Typical weighting on a children's residential or leaving care framework: 10-15% of total quality marks. The Children's Homes (England) Regulations 2015 Quality Standard 5 (children's wishes and feelings) and the Supported Accommodation (England) Regulations 2023 Quality Standard 1 (leadership and management) reinforce the rubric anchor.
What buyers actually score
Four sub-criteria recurring across our register.
Sub-criterion 1: Co-design timing
Direct. When does co-design begin?
Top-band answer pattern. Named pre-transition engagement (typically 4-6 weeks before transition). Named first co-design session within the first 7 days of pre-transition engagement. Named co-design cadence weekly through transition.
The pre-transition engagement is logged in the digital care planning system (Nourish or Person Centred Software is most widely deployed across children's residential) with a 28-day pathway plan completion prompt. The audit trail satisfies the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 Regulation 5 on the child's participation in care planning.
Sub-criterion 2: Co-design participants
Specific. Who participates, and how is meaningful participation supported?
Top-band answer pattern. Named young person. Named significant adult (parent, foster carer or independent advocate). Named social worker. Named receiving service key worker. Named advocacy support where required (typically Coram Voice or the council-commissioned Independent Visitor service). Named alternative communication support where required.
Mind Of My Own (MOMO) is the most widely deployed digital voice platform supporting structured participation across children's residential. Naming a specific platform demonstrates fluency the runner-up bidders rarely match.
Sub-criterion 3: Co-design outputs
Concrete. What named documents come out of co-design?
Top-band answer pattern. Named pathway plan co-signed with the young person. Named goals document. Named first-week routine. Named room set-up plan. Named risk and protective factors document.
The pathway plan template is the council's standard format where one is published; otherwise the named template derives from the Care Planning Regulations 2010 Schedule 1. The risk and protective factors document maps to Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023 multi-agency assessment principles.
Sub-criterion 4: Co-design outcomes
Measurable. What quantified outcomes evidence the co-design impact?
Top-band answer pattern. Named transition completion rate. Named first-month placement stability rate. Named young person satisfaction score. Named placement breakdown rate.
The KPIs are tracked in the Radar Healthcare governance dashboard or the equivalent quality compliance system and reviewed by the Nominated Individual fortnightly. The Director monthly review pulls the trend; the Board quarterly review approves any policy change driven by the Five-Beat Lessons-Learned cycle.
Anonymised East of England context
A children's residential provider in our portfolio bid for an East of England children's trust Children's Residential Framework. The co-design section scored 5/5. The driver: a named 6-week pre-transition co-design protocol, a named pathway plan co-signed with the young person within 28 days of admission, a named "You Said We Did" feedback loop, and a named advocacy partnership with the council-commissioned Independent Advocacy service. The evaluator's anonymised feedback cited "cadence, named participants and verifiable outcome chain" as the differentiating elements.
The same pattern lifted an anonymised provider's co-design score on an East Midlands supported accommodation procurement, where the Supported Accommodation (England) Regulations 2023 Quality Standard 1 was the rubric anchor. The post-award Ofsted pre-registration audit cited the pathway plan template and the participation log as the most compelling pre-registration evidence.
The drafting pattern that scores 5/5
Five elements per sub-criterion answer.
- Direct answer in 1-4 words. "Pre-transition co-design."
- Statutory anchor named. "Children Act 1989 Section 22(4) wishes and feelings duty."
- Named operational mechanism. "Weekly co-design session, structured against the council Pathway Plan template, logged in Nourish."
- Named cadence. "From 6 weeks before transition through to first month post-admission."
- Evidence from prior contract. "On our prior children's residential contract in 2024, 91% of young people reported feeling involved in their transition plan on the post-transition survey."
Five sentences per sub-criterion. Four sub-criteria. Twenty sentences carry the section.
The Quality Gate audit forces a Forensic Pause on any co-design claim that lacks the named cadence or the named participant register. The 5W parenthetical specificity rule closes Who (named young person plus named adults), What (named co-design output), Where (named setting), When (named timing) and Why (named statutory anchor).
The Quality Gate audit checklist
The Quality Gate audit on a co-design section runs across six checkpoints. First, named pre-transition engagement timing with named first session within 7 days. Second, named participants list including young person, significant adult, social worker, named receiving service key worker and named advocacy partner. Third, named co-design outputs (pathway plan, goals document, first-week routine, room set-up plan, risk and protective factors document). Fourth, named digital voice platform (MOMO, Mind Of My Own Express) with named cadence. Fifth, named quantified outcome from prior delivery with named denominator. Sixth, named published action plan from previous year's advisory board feedback.
The Forensic Pause catches any participation claim that lacks the structural mechanism or any quantified outcome that lacks the named denominator. The 5W parenthetical specificity rule binds every approach paragraph. The Nominated Individual fortnightly review tests the participation log against the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 Regulation 5 audit trail.
The Registered Manager weekly call-round on the deputy manager network surfaces any operational pressure on the named co-design cadence. The Director monthly review pulls placement-stability trend and approves any policy change driven by the Five-Beat Lessons-Learned cycle.
Why providers under-write co-design
Three patterns.
Pattern A: The consultation claim. "We consult young people on their transition." No named timing, no named participants, no named documents. Middle band.
Pattern B: The advocacy reference. Provider names one advocacy partner without naming the referral protocol or the support cadence. Middle band.
Pattern C: The outcome assertion. Provider claims positive co-design outcomes without naming the survey or the quantified result. Bottom band on credibility.
The 5/5 pattern operationalises co-design across all four sub-criteria with named participants, named documents and named outcomes. Evaluator psychology reads the unevidenced co-design claim as a flag of post-award placement-breakdown risk; a structured co-design architecture is read as the proxy for placement stability.
Evaluator psychology and procurement journey context
Co-design scoring is locked at ITT submission. The standstill (Alcatel) window under the Procurement Act 2023 Schedule 5 Light Touch Regime allows unsuccessful bidders to challenge co-design scoring; the line is high-contested because Ofsted's Social Care Common Inspection Framework now reads co-design evidence directly into the leadership and management Quality Standards.
Evaluator psychology rewards structural mechanism above participation claim. A response that names the digital voice platform (MOMO, Mind Of My Own Express), the named co-design cadence, the named advocacy partnership and the named pathway plan template scores band consistency. A response that asserts co-design without the structural evidence caps at middle band.
Sector dynamics continue to tighten. The Supported Accommodation (England) Regulations 2023 Quality Standards, the Children's Homes (England) Regulations 2015 Quality Standards and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 Regulation 5 have consolidated into a shared expectation of structured co-design. Providers who deploy a digital voice platform and a published pathway plan template compound the evidence library across procurement cycles.
The Director monthly review pulls placement-stability trend from the named workforce and care planning system. The Nominated Individual fortnightly review tests the co-design evidence pack against Regulation 17 (good governance) under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 where the setting is dual-regulated by Ofsted and CQC.
Frequently asked questions
What about non-verbal or pre-verbal young people?
Named alternative communication tools (PECS, Talking Mats, signed support, MOMO Express). Named advocacy partner trained in alternative communication. Named family or significant adult inclusion where appropriate. The Equality Act 2010 Section 20 (duty to make reasonable adjustments) binds the accessible communication audit; the audit is logged in the digital care plan and reviewed monthly.
Does co-design apply to children transitioning out of care?
Yes. The named anchor is the Care Leavers (England) Regulations 2010 Regulation 7 pathway plan duty. Procurements for leaving care services score it. The named Personal Adviser leads the co-design; the cadence is typically half-termly until age 21, extending to 25 where the care leaver is in education or vocational training.
Do you draft co-design responses for adult learning disability transitions?
Yes. The named anchor for adults is the Care Act 2014 Section 1 wellbeing duty and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Sections 1-4 (5 principles). Our learning disability services page covers the adult variant. The NICE Guideline NG43 transitions guidance also binds where the young person is moving between inpatient and community settings.
How do you evidence co-design outcomes?
Pull from prior contract surveys and pathway plan completion data. Named survey, named year, named response rate, named quantified outcome. The Ofsted-registered notifications register cross-verifies any placement stability claim.
The synthesis is straightforward. Co-design sections that name the pre-transition engagement window, the named participants list, the named outputs and the named cadence with quantified prior outcome score band consistency. Sections that assert "we consult" without the structural mechanism cap at middle band. The pattern is portable across children's residential, supported accommodation, leaving care and EHCP-supported transitions.
Speak to Derrick Mwesigwa, Head of Bid Operations. We respond within 4 working hours. Email [email protected] or call 01707 240393. TenderLab Ltd, Companies House 17184263. 92% win rate across 200+ submissions. Book a free 30-minute consultation via our bid writing service.