Agenda item

The Committee gave consideration to the report and appendices (at pages 67 - 108) as delivered and summarised by the Interim Community Services Manager which should be read together with these minutes as a composite document.

The Interim Community Services Manager added that although the subject-matter of DFG funding did not affect whether the Council joined the Lightbulb Project (LbP), the Council was not able to guarantee that in the future it would have the same available resources to top-up the grant to previous levels. He further stated that an option also existed for the LbP to assume responsibility for adaptations to Council-owned properties and that a review was currently being undertaken to ascertain if there were any opportunities for improvements in services for which a further report would be brought back to a subsequent meeting of the Committee.

Ms Quin Quinney, a representative of the LbP, addressed Members.

Ms Quinney summarised the history of the LbP’s inception and described the current mechanism through which DFG’s were delivered as being too narrow and overly bureaucratic. The LbP was said to be a single-access point service that sought to provide a holistic assessment of service-users’ needs so to transform and maximise the delivery of practical housing support to targeted groups, most notably in the early preventative stages, whilst providing a scope for savings. She reported that schemes administered by two Trusted Assessors (TA’s) with the involvement of an Occupational Therapist (OT) in one-third of schemes in the Blaby and North West Leicestershire District areas had been delivered more quickly at a cost saving of 17%. She noted that the LbP required an incremental approach to be fully implemented and that a locality meeting would first take place to ascertain the Borough’s requirements.

Councillor Mrs H E Loydall enquired as to whom undertook the initial assessment(s), their professional background and relevant qualifications.

Ms Quinney advised that most assessments were to be undertaken by TA’s – formerly housing co-ordinators – re/trained by, and working in partnership with, the OT service at Leicestershire County Council (LCC) and assuming part of an OT’s role. It was said that an OT’s involvement would be reserved to more complex cases.

Councillor Mrs S B Morris sought to clarify how assessment turnaround times were comparatively quicker and what was meant by ‘assistive technology’ at Appendix 1. She further noted the importance of providing the right equipment to service-users.

Ms Quinney stated that a start-to-end mapping process had been used in order to identify and remove any duplication of resources thus resulting in quicker turnaround times and at a cheaper cost. ‘Assistive technology’ was said to be a tool available to TA’s in order to meet the qualitative needs of particular, but not all, service-users.

Councillor Miss A R Bond enquired as to whether the LbP: worked in partnership with Social Services at LCC; extended to the provision of assistance guide-dogs for the blind/partially-sighted; and who was to attend the locality meeting.

Ms Quinney advised that the LbP formed part of the Social Services’ Steering Group at LCC under which the OT service operated. She said that each locality had a Programme Board (PB) whose members were decided by its designated officers. She stated that assistance guide-dogs were not considered within the remit of the LbP but users would be appropriately signposted to other agencies where necessary.

The Interim Community Services Manager advised that the locality meeting for this Borough was to be organised and interested Members would be invited to attend.

Councillor R H Thakor enquired as to whether the scheme presented a funding cut to DFG’s and, with reference to the table outlining the available spend for DFG’s in Leicestershire in 2016/17 (at page 93), whether the total was an estimated figure.

The Interim Community Services Manager advised that the existing funding arrangements had no material impact upon joining the LbP. He further reported that only £177,000 of the total £316,000 sum awarded by the government to Oadby and Wigston was paid to this Council via the Better Care Fund (BCF) as administered by LCC, with the remainder sum diverted into other County-wide projects. He noted that this Council and another Council were still in dispute with LCC regarding this matter and that it would be reported back to a subsequent meeting of this Committee. He stated that although there was to be no funding cut, this area often spent above its allocation thus requiring the Council to top-up the grant from capital funds in previously successive years.

Ms Quinney advised that the total available spend was an estimated figure and that the omitted amounts in respect of the BCF element for the Charnwood and Oadby and Wigston areas and Countywide BCF funded DFG activity were yet to be confirmed because of the ongoing and aforesaid dispute with LCC.

Councillor G S Atwal asked if a saving was to be accrued to this Council under the LbP.

Ms Quinney advised that the initial pilot scheme (before full transformation) had generated a saving of 17% at existing resource levels - mostly absorbed by the work of TA’s - and that the total sum of savings would be fully calculated in respect of the Borough once the salient facts had been gathered. She noted that case studies often showed that service-users only required certain elements of a given package and that the LbP delivered neither an overly pre-emptive or prescriptive programme.

Councillor Mrs H E Loydall sought clarification as to why one of the two pilot schemes in the Borough did not proceed and what was meant by ‘satisfactory’ at paragraph 3.2 of the report (at page 67).

The Interim Community Services Manager reported that one scheme did not proceed as the service-user simply chose not to go ahead with the installation and that ‘satisfactory’ was otherwise synonymous to a high standard of work, delivered on time for which positive customer feedback had been received.

The Chair enquired as whether the LbP complied with procurement regulations and retained the service-user’s right to choose the contractor. He further raised a concern in that short-term assessments of service-users’ needs may not accurately reflect a long-term provision of necessary support and the associated costs thereof.

Ms Quinney advised the no procurement exercise was undertaken by the LBP as this remained an issue to be addressed by each authority in accordance with their own regulations. She stated that service-users’ did retain the choice of contractor.

Councillor K J Loydall enquired as to whether: the £1m start-up granted awarded to the LbP was still current; who was to vet the professional competency of external contractors; and if a falls in standards would result in mostly replacing OT’s with TA’s.

Ms Quinney advised that the financial position of the LbP was to be reported to each PB in due course. She stated that the procurement of contractors would be steered by the PB and the procurement criteria process. It was said that the majority of the assessment work could be appropriately undertaken by TA’s who were said to receive training that led to a qualification and that an OT’s input was still available.

Councillor S B Morris asked whether the TA’s qualification was a government-recognised or LbP accredited qualification. She further stated that the financial implication ‘CR1’ of the report (at page 68) required additional exposition.

Ms Quinney advised that it was a nationally-recognised qualification from an independent awarding body.

Councillor Mrs S B Morris moved and amended the substantive recommendation at paragraph 2.1 of the report (at page 67) to ‘That Members consider whether in light of the pre-business case that has been submitted and the feedback from the pilot schemes they wish in principle to joint Lightbulb Project to administer DFG’s and adaptations to the Council’s housing stock’ (emphasis added).

Councillor Mrs H E Loydall seconded the recommendation as amended.

The Interim Community Services Manger confirmed that this subject-matter would return to a subsequent meeting of the Committee for further discussion and resolution.

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

Members consider whether in light of the pre-business case that has been submitted and the feedback from the pilot schemes they wish in principle to join the Lightbulb Project to administer DFG’s’.