Agenda item

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Leytham)

Report of the Head of Health and Housing

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Leytham)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Health and Housing to provide details of the proposed changes to the distribution of the Supporting People Programme Grant across Lancashire.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

The officer preferred option was Option 3, which was the County Council’s preferred model.  Whilst it did not represent the greatest financial gain for the Lancaster district, the county have to take into account the potential impact and any financial reductions imposed on all districts within the partnership by any model applied, and if districts were to vote against this model, it was highly likely that the county would refuse to implement the 100% needs model, as before with the 60/40 model, which would result in delays in planning for and implementing the necessary savings by the end of 2014/15, or the county might be forced to implement Option 3 anyway.  The preferred model meant that the resultant reductions in budget were below -20% of current budgets, which the county believe was a reasonable and rational approach.  Although there would be a need to identify savings if option 3 was approved in order to commission the homeless hostel, officers would provide a range of options to achieve the necessary savings, and were of the view that the proposed new service was of sufficient strategic importance to take presidence over some of the existing services currently funded through the Supporting People Programme.

The report outlined the various options that Lancashire County Council had explored to ensure fair and transparent distribution of the Supporting People Programme Grant across the county, and had identified the most suitable option that would limit the impact of any proposed budget reductions in each district within the partnership.  Members were therefore required to decide whether this was an acceptable approach and whether officers were permitted to vote in support of the county’s preferred methodology at the next meeting of the Commissioning Body in December 2012.  The report also made reference to the wider implications of implementing the county’s preferred methodology which would result in a reduced budget once the savings were applied in 2015. 

            At December’s meeting of the Commissioning Board, agreement would be sought from the county to adopt their preferred methodology to distribute the Supporting People grant in Lancashire.  Assuming agreement was reached, the proposal would be referred to Lancashire Chief Executives in January 2013 for final endorsement and before being implemented by Lancashire County Council.   If officers were authorised to proceed, a further report would be presented to Cabinet which would provide details of all the possible options to deliver the new service, and more specific recommendations about how the necessary savings could be achieved in the future.

Cabinet were informed that the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) had notified the council that the capital funding secured to provide a homeless hostel was at risk because of the limited progress made in bringing forward this development due to the uncertainty around the Supporting People (SP) revenue funding position.  Any potential Registered Provider partners interested in developing a hostel were unwilling to commit until there was some certainty over the revenue funding position.   Delays in introducing the new methodology for distributing SP funding coupled with spending review announcements had resulted in the SP commissioning body being reluctant to commission any new services until there was some clarity around the proposed new funding model.  In addition, there was now a new requirement for those districts wanting to commission new services to be able to demonstrate affordability within the new funding model including making decisions on which services could be decommissioned or reconfigured to achieve any necessary savings. The homeless hostel was a priority for the district and fitted with the homeless strategy and the Government’s “No second night out” policy.  Furthermore, the homeless forum and the Health and Wellbeing partnership strongly supported the provision of a hostel.

The Head of Supporting People, conscious that SP funding delays had contributed to the potential withdrawal of funding from the HCA, had made an approach to the HCA requesting that they hold their decision to withdraw funding for the time being to enable an urgent decision to be made by the SP commissioning body to approve the revenue funding of 200k for the hostel.  In order to make this urgent decision, SP needed to be satisfied that compensatory savings could be achieved in other areas so as to maintain the overall SP budget for this area at the same level.   SP required confirmation as soon as possible that 200k savings could be identified to fund the homeless hostel. 

The Head of Supporting People had requested a letter signed by the Chief Executive stating that urgent approval was sought from the commissioning body to secure revenue funding for the homeless hostel detailing how the compensatory savings required could be achieved. This will allow progress to be made with identifying a suitable RP partner and identifying potential land/buildings for the scheme. A report could then be brought to January Cabinet detailing the options available to ensure this scheme had the best chance of proceeding within the time constraints imposed by the funding regimes.

Councillor Leytham proposed, seconded by Councillor Smith:-

“(1)      That the proposed changes relating to the distribution of the Supporting People Programme Grant be noted.

(2)        That Cabinet notes the impact and future implications of the proposed changes upon this district.

(3)        That Cabinet agrees that Option 4 be selected when Lancaster City Council exercises its voting rights at the Commissioning Board meeting.

(4)        That the Chief Executive writes to the Head of Supporting People requesting urgent approval of revenue funding for the homeless hostel and detailing where potential compensatory savings could be achieved.”

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)        That the proposed changes relating to the distribution of the Supporting People Programme Grant be noted.

(2)        That Cabinet notes the impact and future implications of the proposed changes upon this district.

(3)        That Cabinet agrees that Option 4 be selected when Lancaster City Council exercises its voting rights at the Commissioning Board meeting.

(4)        That the Chief Executive writes to the Head of Supporting People requesting urgent approval of revenue funding for the homeless hostel and detailing where potential compensatory savings could be achieved.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Executive

Head of Health & Housing

Reasons for making the decision:

Option 4 results in Lancaster district receiving the highest proportion of the SP grant than any of the other options.

The decision fits with section 8 of the Council’s Corporate Plan 2012-15 which seeks to improve the health and wellbeing of vulnerable people, reduce the number of homeless people in the district and reduce the number of people sleeping rough in the district and is consistent with the Lancaster District Homeless Strategy 2008-2013 which aims to reduce the number of vulnerable groups becoming homeless including young people, those affected by domestic violence and offenders/rough sleepers.  A further report will be brought back to Cabinet in January setting out the range of options that exist for the new service along with more detailed savings about how the savings could be achieved.