Agenda item

The Chair welcomed Sarah McCarthy, Head of Supporting People Programme, to the meeting.

The Committee was informed that the Supporting People Programme was responsible for the planning, commissioning and procurement of housing related support services that would enable people to develop independent living skills. The success of which was dependent on effective partnership working between the County Council and other partners including; District Councils, Probation Service, Lancashire Drug and Alcohol Team and the Primary Care Trusts. Most of the services provided by the programme were on a short term basis – less than two years.

It was explained that housing related support services would assist people to:

·  Setup and maintain a home;

·  Develop domestic / life skills;

·  Develop social skills;

·  Manage finances and benefit claims;

·  Access other services;

·  Get involved in community activities;

·  Maintain their personal safety and security;

·  Find alternative accommodation;

·  Help find a job; and

·  Access education and training.

The following types of services were funded from the supporting people budget:

·  Supported housing projects;

·  Refuges for women at risk of domestic violence;

·  Sheltered accommodation with a scheme manager;

·  Home improvement agencies;

·  Community alarms; and

·  Floating or visiting support where support was flexible and could be delivered anywhere.

The Committee was also informed that services provided by the programme were preventative in nature and that social care eligibility criteria did not apply. The Committee noted that there was also no statutory duty to provide housing related services.

The Supporting People Programme was implemented by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) in 2003 where upon partnership arrangements were defined to ensure that Supporting People funding would contribute to a range of strategic agendas such as; community safety, housing, social care and health. Initially, funding was centrally managed until it was transferred into Area Based Grants and then on to the County Council as part of its mainstream funding in 2010. The Committee noted that the CLG had also implemented systems to record data which subsequently enabled the County Council to benchmark its services. Data regarding outcomes for people leaving short-term services was set out at appendix ‘A’ to the report.

Councillors were invited to ask questions and raise any comments in respect of the Lancashire Supporting People Programme, a summary of which is provided below:

·  One Councillor asked where other than the Scrutiny Committee did the supporting people programme obtain political input from. It was reported that the Commissioning Board would identify issues of a significant political nature that would require consultation with the Lancashire Chief Executive’s Group in advance of a decision being made. The Lancashire Chief Executive’s Group would then determine if any issues needed to be referred to the Lancashire Leaders Group.

·  Councillors were clear that the SPP was a large body of very important work. It was also very relevant to the safeguarding agenda.  Members of the overview and scrutiny committees, as well as the Executive and other elected members would wish to continue to advocate for this service.

·  There was strong support by members of the committee for the benefits and dividend from investing in the Supporting People Programme Councillors.  They were pleased that funding was largely in place and commented that the preventative nature of the service would save money in the long term when compared with other reactive services.  Ms McCarthy herself was congratulated for her contribution to delivering a high standard of service.

·  There was also agreement that there might be a case for the service to be placed on a statutory footing, and that this possibility should be given further consideration.  . 

·  A question was asked in relation to the overall trend since 2003 and how the future was envisaged. The Committee was informed that the figures since 2003 were not to hand. However, the quality of services had improved and that a lot of time and effort was spent on procuring services from quality providers. It was acknowledged that further improvements to the service could still be made.

·  One Councillor asked how people’s progress was tracked once they had left short/long term services. The Committee was informed that this was something officers would look towards implementing in the future.

·  A question was asked in relation to the County Council intending to offer more flexible contracts to provide a support service to people living in local communities and what the timescale would be to implement such contracts. The Committee was informed that internal audit was happy with the mechanisms drawn up to establish such contracts. It was hoped that flexible contracts would be rolled out from April 2013.

·  One Councillor asked how short-term and long-term services were defined. The Committee was informed that short-term services were those provided up to two years and were free of charge. Long-term services were defined as anything over two years and would be charged accordingly.

·  A comment was made in relation to the apparent low figures reported for women at risk of domestic violence. The Committee noted that the figure related to Domestic Violence as a client group and that the amount related to the number of contracted places available and not the total number of people supported.

·  Councillors queried the ‘not known’ figures reported in tables 2 and 3 in the appendix to the report and wondered if they represented people who had ‘slipped the net’. It was reported that the ‘not known’ figures related to people who had abandoned support. However, it was important to acknowledge that some things do breakdown and that there would never be a 100% reporting of the facts and figures.

·  One Councillor asked if there was any analysis of the ‘not known's’ carried out by other authorities. A request for an internet link to the University of St Andrews’ report on figures relating to the service was also requested. It was not known if any analysis of those ‘not known's’ had been carried out.

·  Another Councillor suggested that it would be helpful to provide data relating to cost by group supported. A question was also asked in relation to what services were provided for men at risk of domestic violence. It was reported that officers were identifying need for services, however, there was no specialist services available for men as of yet.

·  A question was asked on how the County Council compared with neighbouring authorities and whether people came from outside the County’s boundaries to access services. The Committee was informed that this was a complex issue and that officers would look into the matter.

Resolved: That;

  i.  The key points made by the Scrutiny Committee members be noted and submitted to the Executive for their consideration and comment

  ii.  That the Chair, in consultation with the Executive, decide upon an aspect of the Supporting People Programme that would benefit from further consideration by Overview and Scrutiny

  iii.  The workplan be updated to include such a further report on a date to be agreed in consultation with the Chair.