Meeting documents

Richard Ambrose will update the committee on the Council’s approach to allocating funding to meet local needs.

The Chairman welcomed Halinka Rands who joined the Cabinet Member and Richard Ambrose to present the report on Local Emergency Support.  The Cabinet Member reported that there were three references to Local Emergency Support at the last Council meeting and he welcomed the opportunity to present the report.

Richard Ambrose explained that the purpose of the presentation was to explain what was being done since Local Emergency Support transferred from the Department of Work and Pensions in April 2013 and to seek the views of the Committee on potential changes.  The current policy was approved in March 2013 by the former Cabinet Member approved the decision when there were real concerns that there was insufficient funding to meet the demands.  The focus was to support those in crisis with the longer term aim of preventing people from getting into crisis in the first place.

It was established as time progressed that the demand was not as high as had been expected.  Strategies were put in place to limit cash payments and sign posts people to food banks.  Work was also taking place with partner organisations including the District Council and Housing Association who deal with homelessness and rent payments in order to link these partners and provide a whole scheme approach.  Currently about 10% of the funding received  has been spent and there may be an opportunity to re-look at the policy and think about making changes to the policy to help people from getting into these positions in the first place.  The funding was only guaranteed for 2 years was not ring-fenced and approaches had been made to organisations to see how they can be helped initially as a one-off.  The aim was to raise the profile to ensure that people were aware of the service.

Halinka Rands explained that the Welfare Reform Act abolished the Crisis Loans and Community Care Grant that the Department of Work and Pensions was responsible for previously and the current Local Emergency Plan was formed based on a blank sheet of paper.   Meetings took place with other Local Authorities and there was concern that there was insufficient money available to meet the need because the data provided had not been regionalised.  The aim was to treat people as individuals and understand why they were making approaches for help.  Consultations took place with Children’s and Adult Services when devising the policy and the aim was to complement the schemes they were already using and also provide help out of hours.

The scheme went live on 1 April and meetings took place with local organisations to ascertain what they were doing and meetings took place with local food banks, and organisations that recycle furniture and provide budgeting.  The policy appeared to be working and the aim was to further promote the scheme and work more closely with the partners.  The plan was to work with asylum seekers (although there have been few requests received) and it was noted that there was a statutory responsibility to help children and families under s17.

The aim was not to provide cash but to offer solutions.   A few people phoned and shouted expecting money and the aim was to try to understand why they had got into a situation if they hadn’t met the conditions of the claim and establish if the claim was not met.  The main reason for claims were issues with paying food and utilities and officers wanted to ensure that they gave maximum help and encourage people to help themselves.  The aim was to offer a solution rather than short term help.

Members were invited to ask questions and the following points were raised:

·       The Government was clear that the scheme was to meet local needs and a Member asked how successful the officers had been in meeting those needs compared to partner organisations.

·       Richard Ambrose replied that consideration was given to joining with Oxfordshire who were outsourcing the service.  The conclusion was that in the first year there was a need to understand the scheme.  The scheme was only for 2 years and it was necessary to join up with partners and analyse the data.  Funding was available for up to three posts and which is equivalent to less than one post per district.  This will be revisited after two years when the position is clarified.

·       Halinka Rands explained that when engaging with the districts the aim was to establish a vision and find a solution and not just provide money.  It was also noted that many organisations don’t have administrative support and that the aim was to provide support to them.

·       Training was being provided with the CAB to help people with budgeting and regular meetings take place with the Work and Pensions Team to monitor progress.

·       The Member asked if the approach has made it a more effective system and there is more knowledge available about how it would work.

·       This was considered to be the case and it was noted that with the resources available a very good approach had been achieved which resulted in very good benefits.  Work had taken place on trying to raise the profile of the Scheme and progress was being made on getting links with the District.  It had been established that more money was available than originally considered although there had not been significant demands and it was necessary to use it sensibly. 

·       The Cabinet Member asked if there were areas of unmet need that had not been addressed. 

·       The Member explained that he was aware of families in crisis who considered that they had nowhere to go and were lost in the system.  He suggested that Members required more information on the service being offered. 

·       The Cabinet Member hoped that those in need should benefit from the scheme.

·       A Member noted that this was a new policy which was being developed and he noted that less than 10% of the allocated budget had been spent in 7 months of the current financial year.  He asked if the spend had been overestimated on the basis of figures suggested by the DWP or was there another reason and are there people who BCC is failing to meet their needs. 

·       Halinka Rands replied that there had been an analysis of claims and that it was necessary to establish if a claim was correct and if claims were being made for the correct DWP benefits.  Signposting had taken place because not everyone required a cash reward as often they just required help or food until they receive their next benefit.

·       It was considered that BCC was managing contracts well.  A Member asked what will happen if money is unspent and he cautioned that there was a danger that it may be taken away if it is unspent. 

·       Richard Ambrose replied that a different approach was being used than the DWP who gave cash payments and recovered through benefits.  A more local approach was now taking place which did not ring fence the money which could be spent elsewhere.  There was concern that if the money was not spent it may be withdrawn and it was suggested that unspent money be used on improving the infrastructure needed to build up other community organisations which may reduce demand in the future.

·       It was suggested that there was a need to signpost food banks in order to meet the increase in demand.  This was agreed and it was noted that food banks provided long life food items and that vouchers could be provided for perishable items.

·       A Member noted that in parts of rural Buckinghamshire gas was not available and that it is necessary to purchase oil.  This was purchased from small companies that do not have social tariff.  Some of these customers live on £65 per week and cannot afford to save £800 for oil and cannot purchase small quantities of oil for approximately £20. 

·       Halinka Rands replied that alternative forms of electricity had been considered but there was a question as to whether or not that was practical and sensible.  It was noted that feedback on issues was often provided by delivery drivers and the aim was to try and help individuals when they present themselves.            

·       The Chairman asked about the process for monitoring clients.

·       Halinka Rands explained that telephone support was provided and that referrals are sometimes made to services available in the authority.

·       A Member asked why work was not taking place in partnership with the Post Office or the District Councils to look at a scheme where rent can be provided in advance in order to try to provide support.

·       Halinka Rands replied that the demand for rent in advance is not exceeding the funds available.  The aim is to signpost where funding is available.

·       Richard Ambrose added that through discretionary housing payments money had been given to the District to assist with payments for rent in advance.  It was noted that AVDC did not approve payments for the first 12 weeks because there was a requirement to prove that there was a genuine need.  Applications can also be made to Youth in Crisis.

·       A Member noted that 30% of claims were from Aylesbury and he noted that they were not split by ethnicity and he suggested that there may be a language or cultural barrier relating to asking for help.  He suggested that it may be useful if information was available on the numbers accessing the facility.  The Member also asked if there were sufficient staff to manage the scheme in place and if there was a requirement for more in order to manage the service.

·       Halinka Rands replied that records were not kept of ethnicity and reported that 1,100 claims had been received.  Currently the existing staff respond to claims within 24 hours and was sufficient to meet the demand although there would not be sufficient staff if the demand doubled.    

·       The Cabinet Member recognised that goals were changing and the Council must be careful not to exceed the role.

·       It was suggested that in future there was a need to review how the service was provided and how it will be aligned with universal credit.  He asked if there was any feedback from the clients.    

·     Richard Ambrose replied that the first full year needs to be completed and that in year 2 there will be a greater understanding of the issues and continue to make the partnerships work and it will be possible to look at the longer term strategy and establish greater clarity on funding for the future.  He suggested that it would be useful if an update be provided in 6 months’ time.  This was welcomed.

·       Halinka Rands replied that a written response had been provided from clients thanking for the officers for their support which had changed their lives.   Universal credit will be a monthly benefit.

·       A Member asked how the scheme should be publicised to ensure that claims were made especially given that substantial reserves exist.

·       The Cabinet Member acknowledged that it was necessary to establish that there weren’t areas where need was not being met and it was agreed that it was important to publicise in order for people to make use of the scheme. 

·       A Member explained that he did not entirely support resolution 2 because if an asylum seeker was seeking asylum they had different needs to other individuals.  It was noted that whilst seeking asylum people were treated the same as other residents.  This was noted.

·       The Cabinet Member proposed circulating the amendments to Members.

·       The Chairman invited the officers to provide an update in 6 months.

·       Richard Ambrose suggested that it may be necessary to approve interim changes before consulting with the members for the 2014/15 policy.  This was agreed.