To note amended development priorities for the Supporting People programme and associated issues.

The Committee was informed of amended development priorities for the Supporting People Programme and associated issues.

In January 2004 the Committee had been informed of the Audit Commission’s inspection of the Supporting People Programme in Herefordshire.   One of the Commission’s findings had been that the Council had identified too many priorities for the Programme.  The Committee had requested a report on this aspect and user feedback.

The report set out amended development priorities for the Programme, the Programme’s financial situation and processes in place to give feedback to service users and service providers.

In presenting the report the Housing Strategy Manager drew attention to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s adoption of the findings of an independent review of the national Programme.  One of these findings was that the programme was over-funded due mainly to Local Authorities using the grant to fund non-eligible care services.  The review had found that this had happened in only a few authorities, Herefordshire Council not being one of them.  However, the ODPM had indicated that all local authorities could expect an adjustment in funding in 2005/2006.  This was in addition to the reduction in funding for 2004/2005 of 2.5 % and no uplift for inflation (a £562,000 reduction for the Council in 2004/2005).

Representations had been made on behalf of the Council but it was estimated that the Council could expect to receive £6.9 million in 2005/2006 against an allocation which might otherwise have been expected to be £7.5 million.

The report explained the basis on which revised aims for the programme had been set, placing them into three categories: High (statutory obligations), Medium (highly desirable ambitions determined locally), and Low (actions which the Council would want to take but might not achieve because of the focus on the higher priorities).  Referring again to the uncertainties over the financial position of the programme the Housing Strategy Manager advised that the High and Medium aims could be met, as could the savings targets outlined in the report, and that the Programme was robust.

In the course of discussion the following principal points were made:

·         The clarity of the report was welcomed.

·         In response to a question the Housing Strategy Manager commented that whilst, given the funding constraints, it would not be possible to realise all the objectives the Programme would make a significant contribution, freeing up resources for other services.

·         The proposal to deliver a pilot housing related support scheme for people having early signs of dementia or Alzheimer’s disease was explained.

·         The negotiations taking place with the numerous providers involved regarding the possible capping of hourly rates for housing related support and limiting the amount of care to a maximum of ten hours per person per week and the reasoning behind those discussions were noted.  It was acknowledged that some people were currently receiving more than ten hours support.  Current levels of support would be maintained until reviews had been completed.  At that stage consideration would need to be given by the Supporting People Commissioning Body to how any withdrawal of support should be managed.

·         It was confirmed that although there were quite a number of projects in the High Priority category these were capable of being delivered.

·         It was noted that some poorly performing or less strategically relevant services would need to be decommissioned more quickly than had been planned and acknowledged that Members needed to be informed when this was to occur.

·         It was confirmed that there were robust Service Level Agreements with Aspire and Mencap regarding their provision of services for people with learning disabilities. 

·         That the Supporting People Commissioning Body was responsible for allocating significant sums of money and there should therefore be some Member involvement in the process.  It was suggested that the Chairman of the Social Care and Housing Scrutiny Committee and the Cabinet Member (Social Care and Strategic Housing) should be involved.  In response to concerns that it would be inappropriate for the Chairman to participate in decision making in this context the Director advised that the involvement would not include any voting rights.  The role in relation to the Commissioning Body would be the same as that carried out by non-executive Primary Care Trust Board Members and non-executive board members of the National Offender Management Service.  This would fulfil the requirements of a Shadow Supporting People Commissioning body.

RESOLVED:

THAT        (a) the amended priorities for the development of Supporting People Grant funded housing related support services, as set out in the report be noted;

                  (b) regular reports noting progress towards the Commissioning Body’s delivery of the prioritised schemes be made to the Committee;

                  and

                  (c) it be requested that the Chairman of the Committee and, subject to her agreement, the Cabinet Member (Social Care and Strategic Housing) be invited to be involved in the considerations of the Supporting People Commissioning Body in a non-executive capacity in the same way as non-executive Primary  Care Trust Board Members and non-executive board members of the National Offender Management Service.