What happened as a result of the Crisis and Prevention Fund Consultation process
Individuals and organisations involved in the consultation process
Bristol City Council / Bristol City Council / VCS/third sector / VCS/third sector /Tenants Support Service
Care Services Team Managers
Community Support Team
Bristol Supported Housing Register Manager
Community Supported Accomodation Project
Service Manager Learning Partnerships
Service manager – Care services
Service Manager - Mental Health & Learning difficulties
Welfare Rights and Money advice Team
Service Manager Hospitals & Safeguarding
Service Director Care MGT
Troubled Families Co-ordinator
Executive member
Elected members
Area Preventions Commissioning Manager
Out of Care / Care and After Team
Rent Management
East Bristol CAF team
Disabled Children’s Team
Meriton School for school age parents
Asylum Team
Gypsy and Travellers Team
Famility Intervention project – ASB & DVA
Regeneration Team
Children’s safeguarding Team managers meeting
Mental Health Team Managers meeting
Youth Offending Team Managers
Housing Benefits Team managers
Children in Care
Private Rent Team / Avon Advice Network
Action for Children
Avon and Bristol Law Centre
Addiction Recovery Agency
Brigstowe Project
Bristol Charities
Bristol Debt Advice Centre
Bristol Community Health
Bristol Advice Network Meeting
Bristol Drugs Project
Bristol Red Cross
Bristol CAB
Bristol Older people’s forum
Bristol Multi-faith Forum
Carmel Storehouse
City of Bristol College
Anti-Cuts Alliance
Compass
Riverside Group
Solon SW Housing
Alabare
Community Care advice Ntwk
Christian Action Network 62
National Union of Journalists
Probation / Dsoundz Media
LiNK
Emmaus
Fare Share
Full circle
Headway
East Bristol Food Bank
Matthew Tree Food Banks
Jamaica St Hostel
North Bristol Advice Centre
Next Link
Places for People
Teenage Parents project
Turn2Us
St Monica’s Trust
Second Step
SOFA project
Re:Work
Shelter
Salvation Army
Survive
St Mungos
The project manager attended staff meetings, networks and individual meetings. We circulated a survey and received 65 responses. We spoke to 165 staff within Bristol City Council, for staff whose equalities profile was known, the demographics of people involved are 59% women 6% LGB 10% BME 7% disabled
We spoke to 98 people from VCS organisations and received 24 survey responses from VCS organisations and 17 from individuals. Overall the equalities profile of external consultees who completed equalities monitoring forms (46 forms) is 66% aged 24-49, 71 women 2% LGB 7% BME 25% do not have a religion or belief 22% disabled
We also spoke to potential service users at a homeless families project and a family project
As a result of consulting with the above individuals and groups, we noted the following recommendations. We have recorded what we did as a result of what people recommended during the consultations.
You said / We did /Feedback from the survey
83% of people agreed with the decision to provide basic household goods and emergency payments to those most in need / Continued with the project72% of people agreed or neither agreed or disagreed to spending 1/3 funding on emergency payments and 2/3 on household goods / In the service specification we allowed 5% differential allowing the funding to be used 40/60 or 28/78
The areas for greatest improvement needed to be improving waiting times for decisions (45%) and to improve the quality and consistency of decision-making (38%) / Both areas for improvement are included in the specification and performance will be monitored closely
18% of people felt a triage would be necessary but comments emphasised people wanted faster notification of decision-making / In the service specification, we did not stipulate whether a triage system would be beneficial. Keeping the customer informed of decisions is a requirement in the specification
People were uncomfortable prioritising 5 groups for funding, recommending decisions were taken on individual situations / All groups which were identified for priority as part of consultation, have been included in the prioritisation framework
Households with children under the age of 5,Older people, Disabled children and adults, people at risk of harm and exploitation, people fleeing domestic violence were seen as the groups in highest need / We adopted an approach considering vulnerable household type, circumstances and difficulties with managing money rather than prioritising specific groups.
15 people felt low income is best defined by entitlement to means tested benefits / Disposable income will be used to prioritise emergency payments but housing benefit entitlement will be the low income threshold for household goods
26% of people felt people on a low income should be defined as people with a disposable income of £20, 50% felt it should be £30 or £40 and 23% felt it should be £50. But there was some confusion over the question / Consultation emphasised the need to passport people who are referred by advice workers and those on ESA, JSA and income support. Therefore the final formula for working people or people not on those benefits is to compare with £71 per week to meet all costs payable for an individual.
73% of people answering the question felt people should be limited in the number of awards per year / We have allowed for some discretion for people to make more than one claim, using the circumstances identified in the consultation
54% of people answering the question felt there should be an appeals system to enable people to give additional information and not waste time re-applying. / We have allowed reviews if decisions have been taken using incorrect or incomplete information which is the main reason why people wanted appeals. We have also allowed for information from previous claims to be used for reclaims. In discussions the majority of people felt that funding a project to evaluate all decisions and improve the quality of decision-making was more purposeful than allowing appeals.
87% of people felt signposting was important / All organisations recommended will be included in the initial signposting pack given to the provider.
Feedback from discussion groups
Discussion relating to criteria to apply for an award and what household goods can be purchasedMoney for travel for people escaping DVA is important / Retained travel as part of criteria
Loans work well - why change? / Collecting loans is too costly.
Include allowing for minor repairs if people with learning difficulties create more wear and tear / Minor repairs are allowed
Repair of front door locks would need to be on the same day / Fast tracking would be an option for emergency payments
Need to apply for removal costs / Added to ‘in scope’
We agree largely with the list – our only concern relates to the exclusion of ‘Repair to current household goods’ – it is possible that, for example, replacement of a washer or perished inlet pipe on a washing machine would be considerably cheaper than wholesale replacement. This may need consideration of a directory of approved repair services being compiled by the contract holder. We regretfully agree that financial limits necessitate the rest of the exclusions / Managing repairs takes more management time to check the need for a repair, agree cost, organise vouchers for payment, make arrangements with a new company to deliver. This makes it inefficient and not an overall saving. It could be something the Provider chooses to develop after the first year view if it appears to be in demand and that it could create an overall efficiency.
People can apply for rent in advance if it is needed to maintain their tenancy, not for homeless people who are picked up by Housing Advice or assertive outreach. Allow for the provider to use common referral form for housing advice when new systems are established / Agreed provider will work closely with Housing Solutions Teams, when new arrangements in place from Sept 2013.
Can people apply for money for garden clearances? / Added to ‘in scope’ IF it is threatening the tenancy or for new tenants if there is a health and safety risk and all other avenues have been explored. Would need to add gardening support to signposting information.
Rent in advance - Bonds system works well and this should not be duplicated / People requesting rent in advance are directed to an escalations officer who can refer into the Private Rent Team for rent in advance and deposits. People who are rough sleepers can be supported by the Assertive Outreach Teams. If a person is homeless or at risk of homelessness they can be referred to the Housing Advice Team. However people do need to have additional social needs or vulnerabilities to receive any service.
An opportunity for more efficient working does seem to have been lost. By replicating much of the current CCG system, BCC will be continuing to fund support and advice workers to have to assist people to apply, make their case, pursue revisions/complaints etc., at a cost of some £30 per hour in staff time. If people are in the BCC funded system, being housed from homelessness, resettled with support, moved for social reasons, have an agreement with CYPS or HSC to manage a care need etc, then it does not seem the best way to proceed- we need to use the funding to ensure move on/move in/cope. / There are opportunities for fast track and longer term discussions about developing more furnished properties. The prioritisation system should pick up high need people who should be the same people who are in a BCC funded system. We can return to this issue as part of the year one review to assess whether the new system is enabling move on/move in and people to cope in the community.
Change exceptional pressure faced by a household, not a family. Household would include a young pregnant woman who hasn’t had the baby yet. / Change made
Personal budgets may pay for one item such as microwave. Would be good to have in-house budget to allocate to personal budgets for setting up home. / BCC agreed to commission the service in April, this decision is not open to review. Unable to top-slice budget to fund specific proposals such as this as it is ‘provider bias’.
Be aware of how welfare reform will affect families, lone parents and disabled people. There could be Increasing pressure on the Fund from non-payment of benefits. Be aware Universal Credit will only be paid to one person in the household, which could create crisis if person is not responsible. / We have built in a 20% increase in applications to the specification
Allow storage costs for people for young offenders going into young offender institutions / Added to ‘in scope’ for 18 and under
Should include flooring / Added to ‘in scope’
Possibly paying for pet kennelling when people go into hospital. Needed for DVA and for people going into drug rehab. Paying for deep clean before new furniture goes in. / Deep Clean added to ‘in scope’. Pet kennelling refused because people usually do find someone to take care of their dog if needed. Pet food allowed in emergency payments
Include computer software for people with visual impairment. Be careful the fund does not replace what is a health and social care responsibility, equipment for disabled people is this departments responsibility / Added to ‘in scope’ but need to liaise with Health and Social care to ensure council responsibilities do not shift to this fund.
Make sure work is aligned with food banks / Meeting held with food banks who have participated in provider days
People must go to crisis and prevention fund before they apply for section 17 funds for children’s safeguarding / Added to pathways processes and will add to tender arrangements re data sharing.
Clear eligibility critieria which is published well. Not just triggers for eligibility which are known by professionals / Added to tender requirements
Do not need all new furniture, second hand is fine for some things / This has been included in tender literature.
Problems with criteria alignment across borders. Charities don't want to fill the gap. / We are discussing issues with other local authorities but cannot influence decisions of other local authorities as to what is and what is not funded
Identifying low income by considering income and expenditure is a good idea but some people don’t know what is their expenditure. / We have simplified the expenditure information in the final prioritisation criteria.
You could model assessment of needs around significant lifetime events such as losing or gaining employment, setting up or moving home, having children, preparing for older age. / This has been included in tender literature
Separate needs into households, circumstances and finance / Included in new criteria
Key issue is why the person has applied for help, must have a critical incident. The process needs to evaluate the impact of the incident and take into account how it affect the individual in their circumstances / Included in new criteria
Allow for maintenance payments to be included in unavoidable expenditure calculations identifying low income. / Included in new criteria