Agenda item

The Director of Finance submits a report providing an analysis of the recent Social Welfare Advice consultation, which took place between 31 July 2017 and 6 October 2017, and details of the preferred model for the future provision of social welfare advice.  The Commission is recommended to note the analysis of the consultation and comment on the preferred model of future provision of social welfare advice.

The Director of Finance submitted a report providing an analysis of the recent Social Welfare Advice (SWA) Consultation and the preferred model for the future provision of SWA.

Councillor Master, Assistant City Mayor – Neighbourhood Services, introduced the report, thanking officers and Councillor Waddington, formerly the Assistant City Mayor – Jobs and Skills, for the work they had done on this review. 

Councillor Master noted that the responses received during the consultation had been varied, as a result of which three options for the way forward had been drawn up.  These were outlined in the report.  He stressed that the aim of the review was not to generate a financial saving, but to find a service model that was the best fit to customer need.  For this reason, the report did not contain an indicative saving.

The Head of Revenues and Customer Support reminded the Commission that consultation had been held on four main proposals.  The majority of the respondents did not support the main partnership model or locating the service only in the city centre.  The Head of Revenues and Customer Support then went through the report highlighting and explaining key sections (tables 2 and 3) to the Members. 

Of the options now presented, the third option met the Council’s procurement aims, including the reduction of contract management pressures, and made a more streamlined offer, focussing on specialist advice.  Delivered from a central location, the Customer Service Centre Granby Street, access to each area of advice would be through a single gateway, with advice on discrimination matters being embedded across all advice categories. 

It was noted the location of the face to face offer within the Customer Contact Centre was not supported in the consultation exercise.  However, the authority remained of the opinion this was the best solution, as it would provide a more joined up journey for clients with clear outcomes.  It also would speed up referrals, improve communication and make better use of buildings to ensure more funding was available for funding advice.  The co-location would help meet the Homelessness Reduction Act duty, with several services located in one area. These were Housing Options, Adult Social Care and Children’s Services Crisis, which going forward would be a key access point for new-comers to the city. Additional outreach facilities were recommended for Highfields, as the consultation had highlighted a gap in provision there.

The Head of Revenues and Customer Support summarised the risks as:

• The market could not respond due to Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment implications;
• More people were unable to self-help than predicted and consequently experienced digital exclusion;
• Demand outstripped provision;
• Gateway assessment failed to identify those most in need; and
• New arrivals and other vulnerable groups could fear using the Granby Street location.

The Head of Revenues and Customer Support then emphasised:

• The Council had listened to the sector;

• The option met the procurement aims;
• The advice service needed modernising and streamlining to improve the client journey; and
• Soft market testing  would be undertaken for clarity, covering:
  • Demand management
  • Gateway assessment
  • Common referral process and joined up IT requirements
  • Language and digital support
  • Robust outcomes
  • Social value charter

The Head of Revenues and Customer Support explained that comments made by this Commission would be considered as part of the next stage in re-procuring SWA.  When a decision had been taken on which option should be adopted, it was anticipated that soft market testing would be undertaken, with contract procurement in February / March 2018, so that the contract could start in October 2018.

During discussion on the report, Members expressed concern that in some areas of the city, many people had low levels of computer literacy, so could be limited in how they could help themselves.  In reply, the Head of Revenues and Customer Support explained that a priority of gateway assessments would be to identify those with no, or limited, computer skills and language barriers.  Language and computer skills were useful in other areas of life, so general help would be provided to overcome these barriers.  It was proposed that the move to self-help would be taken slowly though, evolving during the first three years of the five year contract.

Work had been done with the city’s libraries to ensure that appropriate hardware and software were available for members of the public to use to gain computer skills.  It was acknowledged though that there could be a gap in provision for people who were confident in using IT but not confident in using it to access services, particularly Universal Credit (UC).  To address this, it was hoped that champions could be available in the offices at York House and for a few hours a week at libraries to build their confidence with UC IT issues.  These champions would not offer welfare advice.

Members welcomed the aim to create a more streamlined SWA service, but expressed some concern that the options presented could have the opposite effect, resulting in a more fragmented system.  The Head of Revenues and Customer Support explained that the concerns of the advice sector and contract managers had been taken in to consideration when drawing up the options now presented, which included that contract management would be best facilitated by having one division managing the contract, under one contract manager, at central offices.  Advice providers also wanted to be able to influence the management of what was offered at Tier 3.  The contract would be reviewed annually, to ensure that the provider was responding to the needs of the city.

During further discussion it was recognised that people using the SWA service could have complex problems, needing more than one type of advice.  This raised a potential problem of different organisations having their own targets and criteria, which could conflict with those of providers of other types of advice required by an individual.  Alternatively, it could lead to organisations passing on clients they did not feel they could help, or only helping those through which targets could be met. 

In reply, the Strategic Director for Adult Social Care and Health advised that each contract would be offered individually and would be run by one provider.  It was unlikely that one organisation would have the resources to provide all of the gateway services and advice, but it was the Council’s responsibility to determine the level of standardisation, (such as key performance indicators), and define where no deviation from those standards would be permitted.  If there was a cost implication to this, the providers would recognise this is the tender(s) they submitted. 

The Director also confirmed that the tender specification would include specifications for passing on clients, although it would not be possible to completely cover every aspect of this in a service specification.  Practitioners would be expected to determine for each client what the main issue was at the time of assessment and base their actions on that.

Some concern also was expressed by Members about locating the services at the main Customer Service offices in Granby Street as, although this was a good central location, it was a very open building.  In reply, the Head of Revenues and Customer Support explained that those offices already were classed as a “safe” location for working with vulnerable people.  Vulnerable clients already used the building to access Homelessness services, Adult and Children’s crisis services and, in some instances, these are likely to be the same clients.  Those seeking SWA would be directed to the first floor of the building for a gateway assessment process.  Private rooms were available to use, should this level of confidentially be required.

Anecdotal evidence from Councillors suggested that some vulnerable people going in to the offices at Granby Street had not been treated with respect and had had been kept waiting for long periods of time when trying to use the telephones at the offices to access the services they needed.  Members noted that a programme of training for front line staff had just been completed, so they were now fully trained in dealing with vulnerable clients.  In addition, more free telephones would be installed shortly.  There also was a telephone that connected straight through to advice provision services.  Any further incidents should be reported to the Head of Revenues and Customer Support for investigation.

The Commission questioned how people would be able to identify the advice services they required if they were to all be located together.  The Head of Revenues and Customer Support reminded Members that clients would firstly receive a gateway assessment.  It was anticipated that advice under tiers one and two would be located on the first floor of York House, in Granby Street.  The providers on that floor would be identified, possibly by sitting under a banner with the organisation name on and information on the advice provided.

The Commission questioned how people would be able to identify the advice services they required if they were to all be located together.  The Head of Revenues and Customer Support reminded Members that clients would firstly receive a gateway assessment.  It was anticipated that advice under all tiers would be located on the first floor of York House, in Granby Street.  The providers would be clearly identified on a display banner showing where the advice was delivered.

Locations for the outreach centres already had been agreed, taking in to account the Transforming Neighbourhood Services programme, but suggestions from Councillors for a venue in Highfields would be welcome.

There was likely to be a significant number of requests for advice on universal credit, which was one reason for the changes proposed for accessing advice.  Many local authorities were reducing non-statutory advice provision, but Leicester City Council wanted to protect these services.  However, funding was very limited, so the gateway access would enable severity of need to be assessed, to ensure that those most in need were helped.

Soft market testing would help the Council know if its assessment of the anticipated increase in demand, and its associated risks, was robust.  Advice providers also would be asked to share information on areas in which they had seen an increased need for advice, (for example, the demand for housing advice had increased significantly in recent months), so the Council could see how such increases, and their associated risks, were being managed.

The Head of Revenues and Customer Support further advised the Commission that one provider would take responsibility for, and manage, data protection under the contract.  This would be the provider of the gateway services, who it was anticipated would provide the IT system that all other SWA providers would use.  This would be explored further through soft market testing.

The Commission noted that all advice providers would have to be accredited in the future, which would establish a standard of service that could not be guaranteed under current arrangements.

AGREED:

1)    That Option 3 of the proposed models of future provision of social welfare advice contained in the report be supported;

2)    That the Director of Finance be asked to submit regular updates to this Commission on progress with the re-procurement of social welfare advice services; and

3)    That all Members be invited to suggest a suitable location for a social welfare advice outreach centre in the Highfields area.