London Councils Grants Executive

Grants Committee
Support advocacy schemes and legal advice
Item no:
services to promote take up of Direct Payments,
Individual Budgets and self directed care and
benefit entitlements for people with disabilities
and carers (18)
Report by:
Clare Kiely
Date:
9 January 2008
Contact Officer:
Clare Kiely
Telephone:
020 7934 9549
Job title:
Email:
11
Policy & Grants Manager Health
& Social Care
[email protected]
Summary
At its meeting held on 1 February 2007 London Councils Leaders’ Committee agreed to provide
funding of £450,000 per annum to projects that ‘Support advocacy schemes and legal advice services
to promote take up of Direct Payments, Individual Budgets and self directed care and benefit
entitlements for people with disabilities and carers’. The specification was advertised as a two stage
bidding process on 23 May 2007.
London Councils received 31 Stage One proposals that were assessed by officers. 17 proposals were
not successful at Stage One. 14 organisations were invited to develop Stage Two funding proposals
and applied for grant; 6 organisations are now recommended for funding.
Recommendations
The Grants Committee is recommended to agree:
1. to fund (in principle and subject to annual review) 6 organisations as set out in the table below,
for the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2012;
2. the first review to follow an initial period of 18 months (1 July 2008 to 31 December 2009);
3. to decline the bids from organisations listed in Table Two subject to consideration of their right
to reply.
London
Councils
Reference
5185
5043
5307
5180
5081
5332
Organisation
Organisation of Blind African and Caribbean’s
The Advocacy Project
The Sickle Cell Society
The Disablement Association of Barking &
Dagenham
The Disability Law Service
Bexley and Bromley Advocacy
Total
Recommended (£)
359064
100472
463992
262668
515848
97620
£1,799,664
Introduction
1. At its meeting held on 1 February 2007, the Grants Executive agreed the following outcomes
should be achieved through projects that ‘Support advocacy schemes and legal advice services
to promote take up of Direct Payments, Individual Budgets and self directed care and benefit
entitlements for people with disabilities and carers’.
Outcome 1: Better quality social care support provided to people with
disabilities and carers
Outcome 2: Increased access to specialist community care advocacy and
specialist legal advice enabling people to access, manage and maintain direct
payments, individual budgets and self directed care
Outcome 3: Improve the independence of disabled people through increased
take up of direct payments, individual budgets and benefit entitlements and
community care services (particularly people with mental health problems,
people with learning disabilities, carers and younger disabled people.
Outcome 4: Increased access to self-advocacy for Deaf and disabled people
Outcome 5: Actively promote equality for disadvantaged groups through the
service delivery, marketing, evaluation and management of the proposed
service
2. 31 applications were received at Stage One. The 14 organisations invited to make Stage Two
applications were asked to submit proposals for projects that would meet up to five outcomes.
3. London Councils received 14 applications under Stage Two. Each has been assessed against
the published funding criteria and the objective of providing a balanced programme that delivers
outcomes across London within the allocated funding of £450,000.
Funding proposals
4. Table One A includes the 6 organisations recommended for funding.
Table 1A
London
Councils
Reference
5185
5043
5307
5180
5081
5332
Organisation
Organisation of Blind
African and Caribbean’s
The Advocacy Project
The Sickle Cell Society
The Disablement
Association of Barking &
Dagenham
The Disability Law Service
Bexley and Bromley
Advocacy
Assessmen
t score
Total
Recommended
(£)
Recommended
FYE
(£)
210
359064
89766
200
195
175
100472
463992
262668
25118
115998
65667
170
160
515848
97620
128962
24405
£1,799,664
£449,906
TOTALS
5. Table One B includes the organisation project descriptions for the 6 organisations recommended
for funding. The table includes the total funding request, the assessment score and conditions that
should be attached to the provision of any funding.
6. Table Two includes all the organisations that are not recommended at Stage Two together with a
brief description of why the funding proposal should not be taken forward.
7. The Grants Executive is recommended to provide funding to the six organisations listed in table
1b. Each of the organisations has submitted a good application with proposals that will meet the
outcomes outlined in the specification. Together the organisations will provide a coherent package
of services meeting the stated needs of all London boroughs.
All of the recommended organisations will enable service users to access direct payments and
individual budgets and support them to ensure positive outcomes. Support services will be
provided to help people to open bank accounts, manage their finances, negotiate with local
authorities and purchase the support they need as and when they need it.
The service specification highlighted a low take up of direct payments among the 1.4 million people
with disabilities living in London particularly people from minority communities, carers, people with
learning disabilities, those with long term illnesses and mental health problems. There is a lack of
dedicated services for people with mental health problems this target group was underrepresented
in the applications received and recommended organisations will be asked to include this type of
user in the services provided. All other target groups are represented in the package. Users from
all boroughs will be able to access high quality legal advice and representation. The provision of
targeted advocacy will support target groups to access services giving them greater independence
and choice. Advocacy support will assist carers to access assessments and seek additional
support to help them continue in their caring role.
Recommended services will;
- Provide advocacy support negotiating assessments and accessing correct entitlements
- Provide advice and information on direct payments and entitlements
- Provide specialist legal advice, support and representation on direct payment decisions
- Provide skills development to service users and carers to increase self advocacy
- Provide services for disabled people and carers from BAME groups
- Work with local authorities providing feedback on how to improve the delivery of direct payments
All boroughs currently receive the level of anticipated benefit. A number or organisations applied to
provide services in the same boroughs officers have recommended services that will best meet the
needs of boroughs as illustrated by levels of indicative funding and evidence of need.
Recommended bids scored between 160 and 210 points and provided detailed outputs and
outcomes that will be able to measure the benefit of funding and activities during the lifetime of the
grant. Officers have contacted organisations with proposed changes to their service to ensure that
the intentions of grants committee and the level of available funding were met.
8. Applications have been assessed for funding on a competitive basis due to the demand for
resources and organisations seeking resources for similar services. Officers paid close attention to
borough coverage, target groups and the strategic impact of project when making
recommendations to Grants Committee.
Table 1B – Organisations recommended for funding covering the period 1 July 2008 – 30 June 2012.
Ref
Organisation
Assessment
score
Total
Recommended
(£)
Recommended Project Description
FYE
(£)
5185
Organisation of
Blind African
and
Caribbean’s
210
359064
89766
5043
The Advocacy
Project
200
100472
25118
5307
The Sickle Cell
Society
195
463992
115998
The organisation is seeking funding to
provide information sessions on Direct
Payments and benefits, casework,
advocacy, tribunal and appeals work and
support for carers. Services will be
provide in partnership with Disability
Hackney and DIAL Waltham Forest and
will be accessible to a range of people
with disabilities and their carers.
The organisation is seeking funding to
provide independent advocacy relating to
Self-Directed Support primarily for adults
with learning disabilities living in Camden,
Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea.
The organisation will provide information,
advocacy and the provision of specialist
legal advice and representation to
increase the take-up of direct payments
and individual budgets and benefit
entitlements by people affected by sickle
cell disorders and their carers. The
organisation has experience of delivering
services across London and has
demonstrated the need for its services
through research and consultation.
Officer Recommendation
This organisation is recommended
for funding. The organisation
scored highly as it met all the
criteria and its outcomes are
SMART. Activities and indicators
are clearly described and the
activities could realistically deliver
towards the service specification
outcomes.
This organisation is recommended
for funding. It scored highly on its
outputs and outcomes. The
activities described are relevant to
delivering the service specification
outcomes. The organisation has
met the condition set at stage one
by reducing its project costs in
Kensington and Chelsea.
This organisation is recommended
for funding. It provided detail on its
outputs and outcomes. The
activities are clearly described and
relevant to delivering the service
specification outcomes. Indicators
are clearly described. Condition:
further information on monitoring
and evaluation, financial regulations
and equal opportunities to be
provided.
5180
The
Disablement
Association of
Barking &
Dagenham
175
262668
65667
DABD, in partnership with Community
Links and Tower Hamlets Law Centre are
seeking funding to provide independent
advocacy and support to disabled people
and carers in East London with regard to
direct payments/individual budgets and
benefit entitlement.
5081
The Disability
Law Service
170
515848
128962
Disability Law Service will provide a
specialist legal service to help people with
a range of disabilities and carers
throughout Greater London to take up
direct payments, benefit entitlements and
community care services. Services will
include face to face surgeries telephone
advice and outreach.
5332
Bexley and
Bromley
Advocacy
160
97620
24405
9.
The project will support people with a
range of disabilities and their carers who
receive little or no support to access
benefits, direct payments and their full
entitlements in outer London boroughs.
The project is expanding its current work
with people with learning difficulties and
has provided research to show the need
for the project.
This organisation is recommended
for funding. It scored highly on its
outputs and outcomes and has a
strong working partnership with
Advice UK. Condition: detailed
information on staff roles, the roles
and responsibilities of the partner
organisations and management
arrangements and a clear budget
need to be provided.
This organisation is recommended
for funding. It scored moderately on
outputs and outcomes. Condition:
target figures for training courses,
detail of face to face surgeries,
additional evidence of consultation
and contacts in all proposed
boroughs and access arrangements
for individuals must be provided.
This organisation is recommended
for funding. Activities are clearly
described and relevant to delivering
the service specification outcomes.
Condition: Additional indicator
information, detail of legal advice,
physical access and monitoring
arrangements to be provided.
Detailed project descriptions, work plans and how the applicants’ propose to meet the identified outcomes are available to Members
on request.
Table 2 – Organisations not recommended for funding
Reference
Organisation
Assessment
score
145
Reason
5299
The Daffodil
Advocacy Project
5086
Mind in Enfield
135
5098
Chinese National
Healthy Living
Centre
135
This organisation is not recommended for funding. The outputs included in the application are not sufficiently related to
London Councils outcomes for this service. At Stage One outcome 4 lacked specific detail. The organisation was
asked to demonstrate that activities increase access to self-advocacy for the target group. This has not been fully met.
The organisation states that it will establish links with local authority departments, officers therefore assume that this
consultation has not been undertaken. The application has a health improvement focus which does not fully relate to
the service specification criteria.
5110
Carers London
125
This organisation is not recommended for funding. The organisation scored moderately on its outputs and outcomes as
it did not give annual targets for each one. The organisation has not provided specific information on
research/consultation done with users in each area it intends to deliver London Councils funded services or with direct
payment support organisations. It failed to submit any information on the roles of other organisations, or why it does not
need other organisation's help. The organisation did not provide detailed descriptions of the roles of the paid staff or
volunteers. It did not submit adequate detail on how the project would be managed. It did not mention how the two
Carers Rights Workers would be managed or what reporting lines there would be. It did not give sufficient detail on
how the London Council's grant would be managed.
5934
Action for Blind
People
105
5220
Kith & Kids
The organisation is not recommended for funding. The organisation scored moderately for outcomes as insufficient
information was provided for indicators and annual targets. It is not clear how the project will measure change over the
lifetime of the project.
This organisation is not recommended for funding. The organisation has scored poorly on outcomes as it did not
submit indicators. The outcomes were not clearly written. The organisation did not give information on physical access
(where face to face contact is relevant). It has not given adequate information on how it will monitor and evaluate the
London Council's funded service. The organisation has not given sufficient detail on how the service would be
managed, how the grant would be managed or how monitoring would be managed. The organisation has not stated
whether financial regulations exist and are used.
95
The organisation is not recommended for funding. The organisation scored moderately on outcomes however proposed
outputs lacked detail and further information on roles and responsibilities for financial reporting including which role
reports on finances to the sub committee should have been provided. The proposals meet the communication needs of
users however it is not clear how users from different boroughs will access the services in Redbridge. Limited
consultation was undertaken in the areas the project proposes to work in. The disablement association of Barking and
Dagenham also proposed to provide services in these areas and has been recommended for funding.
This organisation is not recommended for funding. The partnership letters were not signed. It poorly met the
outcomes. It has not fully met outcome two (it has not mentioned that it would provide specialist legal advice), and
outcome five (does not give detail on evaluation and management of the proposed service in terms of actively
promoting equality. The main method of reaching the target group is through leaflets and information sheets. It will be
providing outreach work but it doesn't explain how users will access the service.
5059
Carers of Barking
and Dagenham
5134
Advocacy
Partners
75
0
This organisation is not recommended for funding. The organisation did not provide sufficient detail on its outputs. It
did not provide outputs that relate to outcomes two, four or five. The organisation did not make reference to outcome 4
(self-advocacy) or outcome 2 (increased access to specialist community care). The organisation has undertaken
limited consultation. It gave research information of need at borough level but did not give information on how it has
engaged with potential service users. The organisation does not describe in sufficient detail the role of other
organisations involved in delivering the service.
The organisation is not recommended for funding. The organisation scored poorly on outputs it has provided less than
5 outputs that relate to the outcomes. It is not clear how output 3 relates to 'improving the independence of disabled
people through increased take up of direct payments'. It is not clear how output 5 relates to 'promoting equality for
disadvantaged groups through the service delivery, marketing and evaluation of the service'. The organisation scored
poorly on outcomes and received 0 score as it failed to demonstrate it meets all of the first four criteria. Activities are not
clearly described; essential information regarding how the service will be provided logistically has not been included. At
stage 1 the organisation was asked to include information on how it would make services accessible to deaf people this
has not been provided. The outcomes information does not fully correlate with the outputs. The organisation provided
only general information on their research and consultation with service users and did not provide information on how
users would physically access the services. The project states that extensive outreach work will be undertaken but this
is not reflected in the outputs and outcomes. No information on partner organisations was provided although the
application states that it will take referrals and work closely with a number of voluntary and statutory providers. At
Stage 1 the organisation was asked to include information in its stage 2 application on legal advice (done), services for
deaf people (not included in outcomes/ outputs) and to review its figures in a number of boroughs (done).
Borough Spread
10. Organisations have submitted budgets for the proposed service. Officers have compared these
indicative service costs with the Grants Committee’s expectation of how much benefit residents
from each borough should receive. Where appropriate officers have negotiated with organisations
to ensure the total package reflects Grants Committee’s intentions. All boroughs currently receive
the anticipated level of benefit.
Financial implications
18.
Officers have ensured that the total level of funding recommended matches the Committee’s
intentions. Monitoring of funded organisations will ensure Grants Committee continues to
receive the level of benefit agreed in the specification. This is subject to a 20% variation,
agreed by Members.
Equalities implications
19. The Support advocacy schemes and legal advice services to promote take up of Direct Payments,
Individual Budgets and self directed care and benefit entitlements for people with disabilities and
carers (18) both supports and promotes equality. Services will address the needs of specific
equalities groups identified in the specification including The proposed package of services will
target people with a range of disabilities including learning disabilities, carers and family members,
people with mental health problems, BAMER groups and older people.
20. The organisations have all provided policies that demonstrate that equal opportunities practices,
which relate to staffing, management, governance, service users and the wider community, are
implemented. As a condition of funding all organisations must demonstrate that their service
includes users in the delivery of services and must also show that they are monitoring impact.
21. All services must also demonstrate the ability to comply with relevant equalities legislation in
delivering services. Through the development of funding agreements with the organisations and
through monitoring their progress, officers will ensure the projects deliver their services in a way
that is fully accessible, compliant with equality and diversity practice and targets the communities
that are traditionally termed as hardest to reach.
Appendices
20.
Appendix One sets out Grants Committee’s funding intentions per annum and compares this
to the indicative value of funding proposals per borough in line with officer recommendations.
Appendix One : comparison of Grant Committee funding intentions and indicative value of funding proposals
Boroughs
The
Disability
Law
Service
The Disablement
Association of
Barking &
Dagenham
Organisation of
Blind African
Caribbean’s
The
Advocacy
Project
The Sickle
Cell
Society
Bexley and
Bromley
Advocacy
Amount
requested
Maximum
amount
funding
p/borough
%
difference
Barking
£1,791
£6,708
£4,349
£0
£1,096
£0
£13,944
£13,941
0%
Barnet
£6,293
£0
£0
£0
£4,058
£4,529
£14,880
£14,881
0%
Bexley
£1,244
£0
£0
£0
£1,094
£8,834
£11,172
£11,172
0%
Brent
£4,752
£0
£4,590
£0
£6,278
£1,618
£17,238
£17,238
0%
Bromley
£1,929
£0
£0
£0
£1,794
£9,424
£13,147
£13,144
0%
Camden
City
£1,749
£116
£0
£0
£1,715
£0
£10,756
£0
£1,475
£146
£0
£0
£15,695
£262
£15,736
£263
0%
0%
Croydon
£6,684
£0
£5,627
£0
£5,345
£0
£17,656
£17,658
0%
Ealing
£5,799
£0
£5,784
£0
£6,702
£0
£18,285
£18,285
0%
Enfield
Greenwich
Hackney
Hammersmith &
Fulham
£7,020
£7,347
£3,199
£0
£0
£8,773
£5,816
£6,874
£2,377
£0
£0
£0
£4,336
£2,725
£3,507
£0
£0
£0
£17,172
£16,946
£17,856
£17,174
£16,946
£17,857
0%
0%
0%
£4,605
£0
£0
£0
£6,252
£0
£10,857
£10,858
0%
Haringey
£8,243
£0
£0
£0
£8,247
£0
£16,490
£16,490
0%
Harrow
£6,273
£0
£0
£0
£4,486
£0
£10,759
£10,759
0%
Havering
£1,889
£8,739
£840
£0
£1,445
£0
£12,913
£12,909
0%
Hillingdon
£3,692
£0
£4,724
£0
£4,442
£0
£12,858
£12,859
0%
Hounslow
£6,293
£0
£0
£0
£7,043
£0
£13,336
£13,336
0%
Islington
Kensington &
Chelsea
£6,156
£0
£5,845
£0
£4,667
£0
£16,668
£16,668
0%
£975
£0
£0
£5,739
£1,277
£0
£7,991
£7,989
0%
Kingston
£3,035
£0
£0
£0
£2,141
£0
£5,176
£5,176
0%
Lambeth
£3,581
£0
£8,297
£0
£6,278
£0
£18,156
£18,156
0%
Lewisham
£4,477
£0
£8,104
£0
£4,484
£0
£17,065
£17,067
0%
Merton
£2,535
£0
£1,784
£0
£3,285
£0
£7,604
£7,604
0%
Newham
Redbridge
£2,099
£1,045
£13,752
£9,343
£2,385
£2,972
£0
£0
£2,103
£897
£0
£0
£20,339
£14,256
£20,335
£14,255
0%
0%
Richmond
£3,525
£0
£0
£0
£2,184
£0
£5,709
£5,710
0%
Southwark
£3,496
£0
£9,430
£0
£5,593
£0
£18,519
£18,519
0%
Sutton
Tower Hamlets
£4,128
£5,519
£0
£9,321
£0
£0
£0
£0
£3,982
£1,794
£0
£0
£8,110
£16,634
£8,110
£16,633
0%
0%
Waltham
£1,604
£9,031
£2,338
£0
£1,794
£0
£14,767
£14,767
0%
Wandsworth
Westminster
£5,035
£2,835
£0
£0
£4,726
£1,189
£0
£8,623
£4,143
£897
£0
£0
£13,904
£13,544
£13,906
£13,543
0%
£128,962
£65,667
£89,766
£25,118
£115,988
£24,405
£449,906
£450,000
Total