Agenda item

The Director of Finance submits a report, which provides an overview of the Social Welfare Law and Advice (SWLA) contract outcomes for the city, highlights key outcomes and identifies any risk or issues which may have arisen during 2015/16.

The Director of Finance submitted a report providing an overview of the Social Welfare Law and Advice contract outcomes for the city, highlighting key outcomes and identifying risks and issues arising during 2015/16.

The Head of Revenues and Customer Support introduced the report, explaining that:

·           This was a review of Year 3 of the contract, which had been awarded to Citizens’ Advice LeicesterShire (CAL);

·           CAL had met the targets for Tier 1, 2 and 3 advice;

·           CAL had undertaken 500 outreach sessions outside the city centre and 210 home visits.  This work was sub-contracted to Age UK;

·           Outreach sessions had been quite fractured, (for example, being held for half a day each in various locations).  This was confusing for clients, so was being addressed through contract management;

·           Clients were not required to divulge demographic data, so the information recoded reflected casework where clients were willing for CAL to collect data;

·           The target for customer satisfaction was 85%, but in all elements of the contract surveyed it was at over 90%.  The only element not surveyed was outreach provision, but data on customer satisfaction with this would be collected during 2016/17; and

·           Risks had been identified as set out in the report and a collaborative approach to addressing them would achieve improvements going forward.

Dawn Mason, Service Leader at Citizens’ Advice LeicesterShire, addressed the commission at the invitation of the Chair, in accordance with Scrutiny Procedure Rule 8(2), (part 4E of the Council’s Constitution).  Ms Mason noted that:

o    Welfare reform had led to an increased number of people approaching CAL for advice;

o    In responding to this, CAL also aimed to identify issues associated with enquiries that they could provide advice on, as many client groups were very vulnerable and needed help with basic life administration;

o    All people working with clients were volunteers;

o    CAL was becoming very successful at getting people in to work using skills learned with the Citizens’ Advice Bureau;

o    Even if people raised several issues on one visit, this was counted as one contact;

o    Councillors could contact CAL about individual cases and CAL would make appointments to see those people;

o    Webchat enabled people to click on a link from the CAL website and interact with staff, (who were trained generalists), on issues.  Only general advice could be given over the website, so this was Tier 1 advice and as such was only an initial assessment of a person’s situation; and

o    Leicester appeared to have a higher number of disabled clients than the national average, but this figure was derived from self-classification by clients.

Councillor Waddington, Assistant City Mayor for Skills and Jobs, welcomed the report and the notable number of people helped, the scope of advice offered and the variety of locations used.  However, she agreed that more information was needed on outcomes for people who received advice on social welfare matters.  She also suggested that improved marketing was needed, to get information on the scope and availability of advice to people who needed it.

Members asked that information be made available on where outreach sessions were held, as they were not always aware of those within their own wards.  They also suggested that it would be useful to receive information on how clients and Councillors could access CAL.

It was noted that the Ward names used in the information on contract performance were out of date.  However, the updating of Ward data was included on the list of improvements needed, so this would be addressed during the coming year.

The Commission welcomed the range of good practice identified in the report, but questioned whether the translator service included provision for clients to provide their own interpreter.  In response, Dawn Mason explained that it was recognised that some people preferred to use their own interpreter.  It was important though that such people were impartial, as not being so could influence the way things were interpreted.

Members particularly welcomed the initiative to train people as “problem noticers” and suggested that this could be very useful training for Councillors and front-line staff to receive.

AGREED:

1)    That the report be received and welcomed;

2)    That the Head of Revenues and Customer Support be asked to provide information for Councillors on how clients and Councillors could access Citizens’ Advice LeicesterShire’s advice services, this information to be sent direct to each Councillor and included in the information bulletin issued by Members’ Services;

3)    That Citizens’ Advice LeicesterShire be asked to include more information in its next report on outcomes for people who receive advice under its Social Welfare Law and Advice provision contract with this Council;

4)    That the Head of Revenues and Customer Support be asked to consider how “problem notice” training can be provided for front-line staff and to liaise with the Democratic and Civic Support Manager to determine how provide this training could be provided for Councillors;

5)    That Citizens’ Advice LeicesterShire and the Head of Revenues and Customer Support be asked to regularly assess the locations at which outreach services are provided, particularly with a view to identifying new locations;

6)    That Citizens’ Advice LeicesterShire and the Head of Revenues and Customer Support be asked to provide future contract monitoring reports in the same format as that presented here.