Agenda item

The Director for Care Services and Commissioning (Adult Social Care) submits a report outlining proposals for implementing the findings of a review of the Voluntary and Community Sector preventative services funded by Adult Social Care.  The Commission is recommended to endorse the proposals.

The Director for Care Services and Commissioning (Adult Social Care) submitted a report outlining proposals for implementing the findings of a review of the Voluntary and Community Sector preventative services funded by Adult Social Care. 

The Director explained that contracts for the current services expired on 31 March 2015 and under the Council’s Procurement Rules and European legislation it was not possible to extend them further.  In addition, the Council could not commit funding for more than two years, due to the current financial situation, although there would be an opportunity to extend for a further two years if the funding was available.  The review of the services asked for opinions on whether there should be one generic advocacy service in the future, or individual ones.  Responses to the consultation favoured a range of  specialist services.  The report also recommended that temporary funding should be provided to support counselling services pending consideration of future funding by health.

Mr Bhodrashi Tridedi, Chair of Leicestershire Ethnic Elderly Advocacy Project (LEEAP), addressed the meeting at the invitation of the Chair.  He reminded Members that written information about LEEAP had been circulated prior to the meeting and made the following comments:-

·           LEEAP was a Council-funded project that had been in operation for 20 years;

·           The charity promoted and protected the interests of approximately 100 people.  These people required intense social care, so their condition could deteriorate quickly if this was not available;

·           There had been considerable distress when those helped by the project had heard of the Council’s decision to withdraw funding;

·           The decision to withdraw funding should have been taken in consultation with those affected by the decision, but this had not been done;

·           LEEAP was very concerned that no response had been received to its letter of 9 June 2014, requesting information on how the decision had been taken to change the funding for the project;

·           LEEAP wanted to continue to work in partnership with the Council, particularly with regard to issues such as financial and legal issues, and those arising under the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment (TUPE) regulations;

·           The forthcoming change would disrupt long-standing services; and

·           LEEAP hoped that the Council would consider its request for continued funding favourably.

The Assistant Mayor (Adult Social Care) advised Mr Tridedi that a reply to LEEAP’s letter of 9 June had been drafted and would be sent soon.  If the organisation wanted to meet the Assistant Mayor at any time to discuss the issues, this could be arranged.

The Assistant Mayor also advised the Commission that all VCS organisations who provided preventative services funded by the Adult Social Care department, had been consulted about the review and many had attended briefing sessions arranged by the Council.   It was also explained that the Council wanted to continue to work with organisations to deliver good quality services, but could not guarantee which organisations those would be, as it was required to go through a procurement process.

The Council was doing all it could to support organisations through the procurement process.  For example, potential bidders needed to be made aware of TUPE regulations if a current contractor was not successful in continuing their contract.  Two briefing sessions had been arranged for early July 2014 to include advice on completing the procurement process and TUPE.  In addition, officers could provide assistance to organisations going through the process, but it was stressed that officers could not fill out tender documents for such organisations.

The City Mayor confirmed that there was no expectation that any organisation currently providing adult social care preventative services would be unsuccessful in the tendering process, but the fears expressed by organisations such as LEEAP were recognised.

The Commission asked whether the services provided by LEEAP could be grant-funded, or whether they would need to be considered under the procurement process.

At the meeting of the Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission held on 14 August 2014, an amendment to the above minute was agreed as follows:

Some members of the Commission suggested that organisations should not automatically have to go through a procurement process, but instead their funding source should be appropriate to their size. For example, for a body the size of the LEEAP project it could be more appropriate for it to be grant funded.

 The Lead Commissioner (Early Intervention and Prevention) reported that advice had been taken from the Council’s procurement and legal officers and grant funding usually contributed to general service delivery, not to services where it was specified that certain things were required on certain days.  The Council was very clear on what was required from advocacy services, so officers had advised that a service specification was needed.  This meant that grant funding was unlikely to be appropriate in this case.

In response to a question from the Commission about how the provisions of the Social Care Act would be applied, the Lead Commissioner (Early Intervention and Prevention) advised that, when tender documents were prepared, quality of service was very important, but the Council would want to know what bidders did in the community.  The documents were not finalised yet, but the questions to be asked were being considered very carefully.

The Commission welcomed the pragmatic approach being taken by the Council to how adult social care preventative services could be continued and noted that there was ongoing work with the Leicester Clinical Commissioning Group on the whole mental health pathway.  In addition, the refreshed mental health strategy for the city had identified a gap in counselling services.

Members asked if it was possible to keep an element of flexibility in the contracts by awarding some of them as grants, such as to lunch clubs run by the community.  This could be assisted by proportioning funding to each service and enable assistance to be given towards running costs, such as rent for premises.

The Commission noted that officers working on the procurement of these services would be working with community services to get a unified approach to groups such as lunch clubs across the Council.

The Assistant Mayor (Adult Social Care) confirmed that the Council understood issues faced by smaller organisations and reassured Members that extensive discussions already had been held with officers.  The Assistant Mayor then gave an undertaking that she and officers would look at the provisions of the Social Care Act to see what flexibility could be achieved.

Concern was expressed that some organisations could not have capacity to complete the documentation required and so could lose funding.  Members asked that consideration therefore be given to ensuring that support for organisations was appropriate to their needs.

Philip Parkinson, of Healthwatch, advised the Commission that Healthwatch had attended each of the separate events held to advise organisations of the proposed changes.  Healthwatch had found that all attendees had been made to feel very welcome and that their views were important.  The report under consideration accurately reflected the outcome of these meetings.

The Commission agreed that the consultation undertaken had produced good proposals for the way forward for these services.  However, it was concerned to ensure that all possible options for what would happen when interim funding for counselling services expired had been explored.  The Lead Commissioner (Early Intervention and Prevention) noted that criteria for grant funding were being developed and would be ready soon.

It was noted that, when the new contracts were in operation, a list of services would be compiled that would be available to interested groups and individuals.  This would be done through information advice services funded by the Council and community organisations.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the Director for Care Services and Commissioning (Adult Social Care) be asked to give consideration to whether it is possible to look at whether some services can be grant aided and the procurement process be proportionate to the level of the contract value to be awarded.

2)    That the Executive be advised that, subject to the comments recorded above and resolution 1),  this Commission supports the procurement of new voluntary and community sector services with effect from 1 April 2015, as set out in Option 2 in the report; and

3)    That the Director for Care Services and Commissioning (Adult Social Care) be asked to advise this Commission at a future meeting of how the procurement process is progressing.