ITEM 2

BOROUGH OF POOLE

SUPPORTING PEOPLE COMMISSIONING BODY

MONDAY 1 AUGUST 2005, CIVIC CENTRE COUNCIL CHAMBER

MINUTES

Present:

Jan Thurgood, Chair / Policy Director, Borough of Poole
Tim Denne / Provider, Carr-Gomm, Chair of the Provider’s Forum
Simon Hendey / Service Unit Head, Housing & Community Services
Andy Hutchinson / Operations Manager, Probation
Ewa Johnson / Senior Review Officer, Supporting People
Alan Kenny / Provider, PAS Ltd, Representative of the Provider’s Forum
Ann Maguire / Drug Action Team
Simon Matthews / Provider, Stepping Homes; Rep of Provider’s Forum
Nick Molland / Principal Officer, Adult Social Services Commissioning
Peter Moore / Principal Officer, Adult Social Services Provider
Clive Newman / Finance & Development Officer, Supporting People
Kris Rowlands / Provider - Support Acadamy, Rep of Provider Forum
Hayley Seymour /
Supporting People Manager
Neil Smurthwaite / Principal Officer, Adult Social Services Commissioning
Nigel Stannard / Management Accountant Social Care
Peter Stratford / Corporate Research Manager
Sheila Swidenbank / Head of Planning, Poole PCT
Zoe McNeil, Minutes / Supporting People Admin Assistant

Apologies received from:

Richard Benson / Director of Planning & Service Improvement, Poole PCT
Brett Jones / Benefits Administration Manager, Revenues & Benefits
Steve Murray / Services Manager, Children & Families
Bill Shaw / Best Value & Performance Manager, PHP
Nick Wharam / Commissioning Manager Children

Copies to:

Councillors / Elaine Atkinson, Chris Bulteel, Judy Butt, Mary Hillman, Jane James, Mike White
John Dermody / Head Adult Social Services Commissioning
Joe Logan / PHP, Head Housing Management Services
Polly Randall / Langdon House, Langley House Trust
Charlie Sheldrick / Head Adult Social Services Provider

1. Introductions

These were made.

Apologies for Absence

These were given.

2. Minutes of the Previous Meeting

These were confirmed as a true record of the meeting.

Matters Arising

Page 1. Present:

The correct spelling of Alan ‘Kenney’ is ‘Kenny’.

Page 2. Matters Arising – Page 2. Item 6 – Update on SP Budget

Regarding lobbying the Government regarding the future level of the Supporting People Grant – to be done when the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are formally consulting on their proposals. (See item 9 below)

Page 3. ACTION: Tim Denne to prepare a paper re Service User involvement for the next CB meeting.

He advised this had been prepared but that this will now be presented in October. (See item 13 below).

ITEM FOR DECISIONS

3. Memorandum of Understanding / Terms of Reference

Hayley Seymour presented the revised Memorandum of Understanding for formal agreement by the Commissioning Body.

She outlined there had been a working group comprising representatives of the Borough of Poole, Poole Primary Care Trust and Provider organisations to develop the Memorandum of Understanding. The Probation Service had also given input into the development of the document.

Two amendments were agreed:

- 2.1 should read: “Conditions” & “Directions” to include: ‘issued by Office of the Deputy Prime Minister either at present or in the future’.

-  A section regarding the chairing of the Commissioning Body was omitted in this draft and should read: “Commissioning Body chaired by one of the three voting members and the chair appointed by voting members on an annual basis.”

All agreed it was a well thought out document and reflected the priorities & responsibilities of the group.

The Audit Commission had raised whether the voluntary sector should be represented on the CB and discussion around this took place. It was noted that some providers present at the CB are voluntary sector organisations. The value of having a voluntary sector representative was felt to be as a conduit of information, including being able to hear their views of the needs and services in Poole, and in helping to meet the requirements of items 13 and 14 of the responsibilities of the CB. Jan Thurgood advised there are voluntary sector networks being developed locally for both organisations working with children and young people and also for those working in health and social care. These networks are being facilitated through Poole Council for Voluntary Service.

Discussion continued in regard to which other planning groups had voluntary sector representation. The Chair of the Supporting People Provider Forum was asked whether there was designated voluntary sector representation on the Forum. Tim Denne explained that there was not & that the providers felt it was not appropriate given the fact that meetings are relevant to current providers for the Supporting People Programme.

It was agreed in principle that voluntary sector representation should be enabled at Commissioning Body level and that it would be appropriate to discuss with Chris Beale of Poole Council for Voluntary Service how best this can be achieved.

AGREED: To adopt the new Memorandum of Understanding and Terms of Reference as amended above.

ACTION: Hayley Seymour and Neil Smurthwaite to discuss how best voluntary sector representation can be achieved at Commissioning Body level with Chris Beale of Poole CVS.

4. Steady State Contracts

Clive Newman expanded on the background to the document advising it is based on a Devon document. It has been amended by the Poole Supporting People team in order to take account of local Borough of Poole factors. The document has been read by the Borough’s Legal Department and has been consulted upon with Supporting People providers.

With regard to Recommendation 3.1. “When the Steady State Contract document has been agreed, the CB then to agree contracting with specific providers”. All agreed that a summary of strategic relevance, value for money, & quality would need to be submitted to the closed part of the Commissioning Body meeting prior to agreeing a Steady State Contract with any provider.

A discussion took place in regard to tendering. It was agreed that in the coming 18 months the Commissioning Body will be needing to consider where they should be tendering for services rather than just rolling over agreements with existing services, especially in 06/07, given the possible levels of funding of the future Supporting People grant .

A new recommendation was proposed: ‘3.5 A paper to be produced in early 06/07 giving recommendations on contracts that should be tendered’. We noted some of these new contracts may be jointly tendered with Poole Primary Care Trust.’

AGREED: All 4 recommendations plus 3.5 as follows:

3.1  The Standing Orders identified on the attached documents are noted

3.2  Contracts offered are currently not to exceed two years in length

3.3  All future contracts are to be submitted to appropriate Commissioning Body meetings for approval

3.4  Specific authorisation is to be given by the Commissioning Body for contracts in which the roll-over clause has been proposed.

3.5  A paper to be produced in early 06/07 giving recommendations on contracts that should be tendered.

5. Eligibility Criteria

Hayley Seymour expanded on the paper presented to the meeting, stating that the Supporting People grant is only to fund Supporting People tasks (as per the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister programme grant conditions). With this in mind the Supporting People team have spent a lot of time trying to distinguish between “care” and “support”, (“care” is funded from Social Services funding, “support’ is funded from Supporting People funding). The separation of care and support tasks has been more difficult in Learning Disability services since some service users have high care and support needs.

Hayley Seymour requested that the Commissioning Body approve further work clarifying what the Borough of Poole Supporting People grant should be funding, especially in regard to:

-  the funding of support throughout the night.

-  the amount of support hours claimed, eg some schemes claim 30 – 40 hours per week for housing related support.

-  approving the general types and levels of services that Supporting People should be funding to achieve savings and to ensure only Supporting People functions are being supported through the grant.

Discussion took place with the following comments being made:

The eligible tasks are well set out in Appendix 2 and Appendix 6 of the supporting document.

Jan Thurgood suggested the next aspect to be explored is capping support hours, followed by analysing the consequences of funding only the key priorities of the 5 year strategy, commenting we could do both or either.

Ann Maguire queried whether non-eligible tasks might be put in jeopardy if they were not continued to be funded by Supporting People.

Andy Hutchinson commented that Probation funding would have included night cover and therefore there is an issue regarding continuation of services for offenders and those with drug problems.

Jan Thurgood felt it was not appropriate to explore the points raised in Appendix 3 (Circumstances in which ‘childcare’ in refuges might be eligible for SPG) at this stage.

Re: Appendix 4 (Local Connections Criteria) Jan Thurgood commented that there were some problems with access to services recently, especially with Bournemouth. Hayley Seymour advised she was discussing cross authority access with Bournemouth and Dorset. A draft cross authority movement paper is currently being developed. She will bring this paper to the CB for a decision when it is completed. Early discussions with cross authority partners suggest that neither Bournemouth nor Dorset want to have free border access for Learning Disability services, apart from exceptional circumstances. This is due to the high support costs in some services.

Jan Thurgood commented on the huge disparity of funding between Bournemouth and Poole and the need for us to explore the local connections criteria, especially in light of the potential 65% reduction in funding to Poole should the re-distribution formula be realised.

In regard to cross authority movement there needs to be discussion between the Drug Action Team, Probation and Supporting People regarding domestic violence & substance misuse services.

We noted that there will be some nationally available services, some cross authority services and some services exclusive to Poole.

AGREED: That the Commissioning Body approve the direction of eligibility as described in the presented item.

ACTION: A working group comprising Hayley Seymour, Peter Moore and a provider representative to produce a paper for the December CB, to look at the implications and outcomes of reducing/ceasing to fund schemes which provide 24 hour cover, but are funded solely by Supporting People funding.

ACTION: That the Supporting People team is charged with the task of scrutinising the effects of withdrawing the funding of night cover services (except in exceptional circumstances). A paper to be submitted to December CB mtg.

ACTION: Work to begin by Hayley Seymour & Clive Newman into the effects of ‘capping’ support hours. A paper to be received by the Commissioning Body at a later date.

ACTION: Hayley Seymour to begin work defining an eligible housing related task list. To include establishing what support tasks Supporting People may not fund in the future and whether there is funding that could be provided from other funding streams to fund ineligible tasks. The implication for Poole in adopting an approach as outlined in Appendix 5 (Support Levels – Definitions) should be presented to the CB in December, this will enable the CB to agree a future Commissioning Strategy.

ACTION: Poole Primary Care Trust & Probation to consider what their key priorities are and what outcomes they want to achieve through Supporting People. This work to include consideration of how outcomes will be evidenced. (Jan Thurgood noted that evidencing outcomes was key to Local Area Agreements.)

6. Value for Money

Hayley Seymour explained that a transparent process on how value for money decisions are reached is needed to ensure a level of quality of financial assessments of all services.

Clive Newman advised that this was brought to the last CB, then looked at further by a sub-group, included providers, which has resulted in some changes to the value for money document. Quality, performance and demand (rather than expense) were looked at first, followed by the cost of the service. Monitoring of the local environment, and the regional and national benchmarks is also undertaken. The number of hours, cost per support hour, including overheads, other income sources and the consequences of reducing the cost are all looked at within the financial assessment.

Tim Denne commented that he felt it was a good piece of work that demonstrated transparency.

AGREED: To adopt the Value for Money Framework.

7. Sharing Outcomes of Reviews

Hayley Seymour advised that this item has been discussed with the Provider Forum, and that the Audit Commission were pleased that Poole is being transparent with providers and service users. Further research with the South West Region, Bournemouth and Dorset shows that very few other Supporting People teams are in a position to give information.

Poole Supporting People have up-to-date action plans with re-visits to schemes not meeting the minimum level of quality in terms of provision being completed. It is a natural progression to release information about the outcome of reviews onto the Supporting People website. This would give a greater choice to service users by looking at the outcomes of reviews plus referring agencies will find it easier to select the best placement possible.

Hayley Seymour had consulted the Provider Forum who had voiced mixed reactions. 6 to 5 were against having information published as there was a degree of nervousness re a ‘league table’ approach, along with realisation that different Supporting People teams score differently (eg Bournemouth or Dorset, for the same provider).

Simon Matthews thought publishing information would promote a continuum of quality improvement. Alan Kenny also agrees with Hayley Seymour’s suggestion.

Tim Denne clarified the new recommendation was to just give the score on the 6 Quality Assessment Framework points. Hayley Seymour further clarified that the action plan would not be published, however there would be a brief description of the service along with its Quality Assessment Framework scoring and the date.

Jan Thurgood commented that the Quality Assessment Framework scoring would have to be service user friendly.

Nick Molland commented that Care Support services have detailed information on the CSCI website.

AGREED: To move in principle to a summary available on the Website during 2006.