The report of the Strategic Director, Corporate Services, (Document “J”) outlines the current commissioned welfare advice services across Bradford District, the delivery of services during the last year, including as affected by COVID-19 and plans for future service delivery.

Members are requested to discuss and provide comment on the issues outlined in Document “J”.

(Sarah Possingham – 01274 431319 or 07582 100244)

The Strategic Director, Corporate Services, presented a report, (Document “J”) which outlined the current commissioned welfare advice services across Bradford District, the delivery of services during the last year, including as affected by COVID-19 and plans for future service delivery.

The background to Document “J” revealed that Bradford Council ran a commissioning programme for the delivery of professional welfare advice services in 2016-17-18. This resulted in five separate contracts let across 4 different lead providers for a term of four years plus one.

The report explained that four of the five contracted services were area/constituency based delivering in Bradford East, West, South and Airedale (a combination of Shipley and Keighley).  The last one operated district wide and was aimed at a client group who have complex and/or long term health conditions.

Officers from the lead providers were in attendance at the meeting and were representing Family Action: a local organisation that had expanded nationally with a regionally accountable governance structure;  St Vincent Du Paul/CHAS, a local organisation affiliated with a national provider with a locally accountable governance structure; Equality Together, a local organisation with a locally accountable governance structure and Bradford and Airedale Citizens Advice Bureau and Law Centre: national affiliated organisation with a locally accountable governance structure.  It was explained that Lead providers had partners and sub-contracting arrangements with more locally based organisations to ensure that the needs of all the communities in the district were met.  A table of providers; their partners, costs and contacts was appended to the report.

The Strategic Director, Corporate Services, reported the services delivered; what had happened during the COVID-19 pandemic; the impacts on access to services and recovery planning for all welfare services.

Member were advised that the needs of those presenting to services during the pandemic had changed. The abeyance of courts, tribunals, evictions proceedings, immigration appeals, late payment notices etc. had meant that many existing complex cases and/or appeals had not proceeded and the numbers of new cases asking for that type of help had reduced. Instead, people were asking for support with Government schemes; furlough and access to welfare benefits as well as personal support around COVID-19, particularly initially those in ‘shielded groups and people with underlying health conditions. Welfare advice services were also playing a key role in food distribution for households in food poverty.  

Individual service experiences were reported together with outcome and performance data and customer profiles

It was explained that, in recognition of the impact of the pandemic on individuals, particularly concerns relating to household income as a result of furlough, possible redundancy and job losses, there were plans to link up welfare advice services, the Credit Union and advocacy. 

A financial and resource appraisal contained in the report, and appended in detail, outlined the cost and budget available for welfare services.  It was reported that in Summer 2020 the Council, recognising the importance of welfare services, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, had agreed a new, short term, investment of £350,000 until the end of March 2021.  Full details were appended to Document “J”.

In response to discussions around ease of access plans made in 2018-19 to engage consultants to work across welfare advice services and the Council’s own Customer Contacts service with a view to bringing the two closer together and making significant reductions in the finances underpinning them were reported. This had become the ‘Transformation Programme’, which was part of wider planning work streams for Early Intervention and Prevention. The advent of COVID-19 had put that programme into abeyance, however, learning points had begun to emerge from the closer working relationships between the services which had come about because of lock down from March 2020.

A risk appraisal had revealed a number of concerns including the anticipated rise in demand specifically relating to complex cases once suspended sanctions were re-imposed and it was felt that the demand would be particularly hard to meet through the restrictive access required under social distancing. Pressure from the community for the resumption of face to face access would increase once restrictions were lifted and the need for continued Personal Protective Equipment was paramount.  It was acknowledged that demand on current systems such as the Council Contact system would increase once restrictions were lifted and their role must be maintained to meet that demand. An increase in Universal Credit claimants; changes in national income support systems; expected redundancies and the uncertainty around Brexit was detailed in the report. 

A Member questioned if there was any liaison with other agencies to forecast when particular needs might occur and how the services would cope with sudden surges in demand. In response it was believed that an element of the rationale of the Council’s short term financial investment of £350,000 was in recognition of the future demand on services.  The appendices to the report revealed that a large proportion of that investment would be on staff. Due to the need for personnel to be accredited and qualified workers it would not be possible to employ additional staff but existing employees would increase their hours to create additional capacity.

It was acknowledged that the report provided an update on the previous 12 months and it was questioned if figures, as opposed to percentages, could be provided on the impact on the services since the start of the pandemic in March 2020.  It was also queried how people could contact services if they did not have access to a telephone. 

Members were advised that contact was made by residents using the Council’s Customer Services telephone line from where people were directed to welfare advice providers.  Experience had shown that the vast majority of people had access to a telephone in one way or another.  Welfare Advice comparator figures, appended to the report, showed a significant drop in usage figures between quarters one in 2019 and 2020.  There had not been the opportunity to make comparisons between current usage but this could be provided once all the data was received.

A Member suggested that usage would have reduced as people were not able to access remote services as easily as physically accessing that support.  He provided an example of a relative who would walk to the Citizen Advice Bureau (CAB) but was no longer able to do that as the facility was closed.  He was concerned that at a time of crisis effective mechanisms to deal with unmet need were urgently required.

A representative of the CAB confirmed that there had been a reduction in user numbers and a different client profile had been identified.  Once the initial lockdown had been lifted a face to face service had been provided whereby people could attend a pre-booked appointment.  Efforts had been made to identify why people could not access the services or if they were unaware of the telephone access.  The additional Council investment would be utilised to create additional face to face contact but the challenge had been in creating additional capacity. 

A Member queried if measures had been taken to predict the level of future demand and when that might occur.  It was questioned if any communication was made to services such as job centres to ascertain the number of people who were out of work and could potentially require welfare advice services.  In response it was explained that the effectiveness of liaison depended on individual services. The Council’s Revenues and Benefits Service had been very helpful and worked with welfare advice services.  There was some liaison with the Department for Work and Pensions but national data sharing did not happen in the same way as restrictions applied to what they could reveal.   

Reference was made to the appendices to the report which showed that the change in people accessing services was because the nature of issues of concern had changed.  Members acknowledged that there were also other mechanisms for the provision of support including that referrals were now being made directly to the customer contact centre for food parcels which were directed to welfare services.

The Chief Executive Officer, Equality Together, explained that there were now other additional intervention programmes available. Activities had been delivered in a more people centred way and word of mouth had helped.  The service was prepared to deliver face to face support where necessary.

A Member referred to an anticipated spike in demand in April 2021 as people who had been awarded legacy benefits following the implementation of Universal Credit would have that assistance stopped at that time.  He believed that residents were still struggling despite having that assistance and that people were also awaiting tribunal dates which had been lodged about Personal Independence Payments.  He also reported experiences of those receiving Disability Living Allowance (DLA) who had previously been able to access telephone and internet communication channels being unable to afford those services due to the cessation of DLA. 

The representative of Equality Together explained a lack of communication facilities had been recognised and arrangements to facilitate that had included people accessing their offices to utilise technology and equipment. 

A Member raised concern that the presentation had revealed that officers had assisted people on areas outside of their professional expertise and it was explained that people were being redirected to the appropriate service or other services were contacted on their behalf.  Assurances were provided that officers would never provide advise outside of their remit.

In response to discussions about the Council’s “One Front Door” service, providing an initial contact point to services it was explained that as part of the Transformation process, detailed in the report, the Council had employed FutureGov to work across welfare advice services and the Council’s own Customer Contacts with a view to bringing those services closer together.  That work had been halted due to the pandemic but it was believed that this could be part of the new service design when current contracts expired.

In conclusion the Strategic Director thanked Members for the opportunity for service providers to discuss their work.  

Members recognised the importance of supporting welfare providers to carry out their roles and assurances were provided that the services were aware of the emotional strain and support for managers and their teams was in place.

Resolved –

That the safe reintroduction of face to face welfare advice services be strongly supported.

ACTION: Strategic Director, Health and Wellbeing