The Islington experience: positive practice and responses to the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Islington experience: positive practice and responses to the current situation

Ian Adams – Director, Financial Operations and Customer Services London Borough of Islington

Resident Support Scheme

• Partnership between Cripplegate and Islington Council.
• Combined several funds – local welfare provision (social

fund – crisis, community care) discretionary housing payments, council tax hardship, Cripplegate. This allows us to ensure that funds are directed appropriately rather than them being accessed independently without any real connection.

• RSS accessed by recommenders who are already

assessing need and make a direct recommendation based on their knowledge. Referrers who see clients and apply for support on their behalf.

What we could see Cripplegate had

• Expertise in grant giving linked to personal need
• Relationship with the voluntary sector
• Different reputation with clients
• Connection with local people
• Wider additional aims that we can link in to
• Funds already used for a similar purpose to the social

fund

• Existing infrastructure and relationships

What the Council has

• Strategic aims and responsibility across a range of need
• Reach – to a wide range of residents
• Access to data including from the DWP
• Access to wider funds to meet need
• Current infrastructure to enable new processes
• Members very interested in and involved in the

Cripplegate model and indeed in engagement with the third sector

• A need based resident focused approach. We want to find

solutions to issues such as welfare reform and debt.

Fears from both sides

• Reputation of Cripplegate. Will they be seen as an

arm of the Council?

• Independence – retaining of identity
• Ability to maintain control
• The impact of welfare reform
• Capacity to cope with volumes – crisis
• Data poor from DWP
• Not all Council funds included some concern about
• pening up decision making.

Opportunities

• Meeting need through the one approach, sharing data,

processes etc really does work. It is often different money but the same people with the same need.

• The combining of funds enables more to be done with limited

resources

• Cripplegate have been enabled to become even more closely

involved and in a position to influence the strategic direction of the Council

• Additionality is the real PRIZE. We can seek to meet the whole

need of a person and provide a sustainable way forward not just the presenting problem.

• We can use funds proactively – St Sepulchre disability project

Outcomes

For 14/15 (end of February)

• Resident Support Scheme awards 5069
• DHP £1.27m Community Care £1.31m Crisis £11,000
• Cripplegate and St Sepulchre £83,000
• Additional support 1,011 – 46% debt and money advice, 17%

employment support, 19% energy support, 14% Credit Union

• Male 34% female 66%
• Of those supported with children – 85% are single
• Homelessness 16% Disability or long term limiting health 36%

Mental Health 15% Dependent children/pregancy related need 19%

• White British 42% (48%) , Black or Black British (African) 12% (6%),

Black or Black British (Caribbean) 12% (4%)

Why we challenged the Government

• The future funding arrangement was misleading at best
• It went against what we felt was promised – important scheme

localised

• New burdens doctrine
• Significant budget cuts
• Continuing need – welfare reform
• The scheme is working

What we challenged

Fundamentally :

• The need to consult
• The need to fulfil their Equality Duty

Supported by:

• Evidence of a lack of transparency
• Evidence of contradictory statements
• Evidence of impact

The challenge continued

• The Government signed a court settlement agreeing to consult and to

fulfil their Equality Duty

• The Consultation document was hugely disappointing – misleading
• We issued a legal letter reserving our right to take future action
• Keep the Safety Net campaign very significant
• The consultation outcome led to a further period of consultation related

to the Local Government Finance Settlement

• The government agreed to allocate £74m – albeit badged slightly

differently

The way forward

• We have £0.56m. Was £1.44m
• Discretionary Housing Payments reduced from £1.85m in 13/14 to

£0.99m in 15/16

• We have agreed to make LWPF up to £1.44m for 15/16 only
• We will need to adapt the scheme accordingly this year

…………………………………………………………………..

• Will LWPF be axed after May?
• Will there be even more hard hitting welfare reform?
• What will be the impact of universal credit – national expansion?
• We will need to muster up all our creativity to retain a safety net going

forward.