2.  Minutes from the meeting held on 12 December 2007

Amanda Moore from People First Housing Association was not listed as an attendee at the last meeting although she was present.  The minutes have now been updated to reflect this.

The remainder of the minutes were agreed to be an accurate record.

3.  Matters Arising

• It was agreed that the matters arising from the last minutes would all be picked up within the main agenda items
• Item 5 - Provider Feedback - Bev Pattison wondered if members had received the information on self harm?  No-one said they had, so Bev will send an email to SP.  SP will circulate to the Forum.

Eva informed the group that Sally had been held up at a meeting.  The meeting started with agenda item Service User Report Back and would pick up the main agenda on Sally's arrival.  It was agreed that the Good Practice session to discuss 'Local Area Agreements - their impact on service provision' would be held at 1.30 pm at the next meeting.

4.  Service User Report Back

Development Plan

The CUG together with TPAS have produced a development plan that outlines the objectives of the CUG and describes how they will achieve these objectives.  Steve Leonard distributed the mock up of the plan to the forum members and Mike Delaney explained that the final plan will be produced in colour and will have the CUG logo on the front (Sara is trying to get hold of an electronic version to send out with the minutes.)  The current plan is more user friendly.  Mike Delaney then read out the mission statement of the plan, which sets out how they will achieve the objectives.  He then went on to read each of the objectives.

Objective One - Exerting a positive influence on opinions, policies and practices.  Mike Delaney commented that this is their prime objective and that until this objective has been realised they can never have a true voice.
Objective Two - Expanding the membership of the CUG and ensuring that the membership is more diverse and representative of al service users.  Mike Delaney stated that at present they are under represented in some areas.  For example, with young people and people with learning disabilities.  The CUG hope to address this at the next Service User Consultative Forum.
Objective Three - Ensure that the CUG maintains and strengthens it's independence.  Crucially, this would be to establish financial independence.  At present they are looking at lottery funding by forming a consortium approach.  Members of the CUG had a meeting on Monday 21 January with TPAS and SP regarding funding for the CUG and are now in a better situation because they now know where they stand financially.
Objective Four - Make sure that the CUG has the knowledge and skills necessary to achieve it's mission statement.  The CUG have undertaken a skills audit to help assess the skills the committee have and identify the areas where they need further training to help develop and aid providers.

The development plan will be launched on 18 February at the next CUG meeting.  Eva Holt asked whether the plan could be produced as a poster but the issue would be funding in order to produce the posters.  At present SP provider the venues for the committee meetings, refreshments, transport costs and crèche facilities but other administration costs such as printing, mail outs would have to be funded by the CUG.

CUG Funding

Steve Leonard started by offering his apologies for the presumptive letter of the 9 December as he misconstrued information from the previous PIF meeting and so he apologies for this and hopes that relationships have not been damaged.  He stated that the CUG was here to stay.  They currently have a venue and travel expenses paid but need help with the admin costs such as printing costs.  A way of generating the funding for this could be through the sponsorship of events where a small fee can be charged by the CUG for doing work on behalf of the providers, but stated that any work would be greatly appreciated.  If any providers have any ideas of support that they can offer they can contact Mike Delaney directly.

Eva Holt suggested that they could possibly provider occasional photocopying support for half a day every one or two months and if other providers can offer similar this could be co-ordinated and a timetable produced.  It was suggested that the CUG could look at what actually needs printing and perhaps emails items to providers to print off themselves for their service user as many residents state they do like receiving information through email instead of printed.

Steve Leonard added that the CUG are setting up a web address that they will look at linking to the SP web page.  Sally commented that the CUG do not have internet access and not all members have email addresses.  At present, it is done through TPAS whose support of the CUG will end in March.

Mike Delaney highlighted that the need for funding is not permanent but is currently urgently needed.  The monthly running costs for the CUG is approximately £100-124 which purely consists of  administration costs an excludes any funding from SP.  From the meeting with TPAS and SP on 21 December, TPAS have been able to reconfigure their contracted hours so they will have added support over the next few months but even this will not be enough.  For the genera CUG meetings they need support to take minutes of the meetings as the current member who usually undertakes this is unable to do this over the coming weeks and so SP have been covering this task.

Alex Sporidou asked if if would be possible to explain which tasks the CUG need support with and then providers can plan when they will be able to provide this support and draft a timetable for this.  Eva Holt agreed with this and suggested that providers who are able to offer support set a timetable of their commitment what they can offer to the CUG and requested that this be forwarded by 1 March to SP at supporting.people@manchester.gov.uk

Steve Leonard also reiterated that they would have a table at the  Consultative Forum with information which they will use to promote the CUG to other service users and encourage people with additional skills to join.  Steve added that he is invited to and attends service user committee meetings all over the country and found that they too experience similar problems.  Sally Hobbs did add that the CUG was constituted as an independent organisation 2 years age and are the longest running group of it kind so differ to other groups in that respect.

Mike Delaney also highlighted the services which the CUG can offer back to providers and gave out a handout listing the help, which they could offer.  It was agreed by the members that this needs to be in more detail and asked for this to be done and re-circulated with the minutes of the meeting.

5.  Update from Supporting People

LAA (Local Area Agreements)

Sally Hobbs briefly updated the forum on the LAA as the discussion in the best practice sessions will not be held until the next PIF meeting.  Some providers may already know the importance and the affects of the LAA will bring as it will be a big change for providers of supported housing.  The funding that SP receives will go into a central pool of funding along with other local strategic partnerships money.  The way the funding will be spent will depend on the priorities what will be set out by the LAA.  It is therefore important that providers help to raise the profile of Manchester and the importance of the services that they provide.

Manchester Community Strategy has there key spines and highlights the key outcomes of what needs delivering in Manchester.  They are

1. People reaching their full potential (e.g. in education and employment)
2. Individual and collective respect and self esteem.
3. Delivering neighbourhoods of choice.

Further details on the LAA will be discussed at the next meeting in the best practice session.

Manchester's Response to the Supporting People Distribution Formula (SPDF)

The indicative allocation reported in the SP newsletter states that next year the SP fund will have a minor reduction has definitely been confirmed.  The following two years are based on the distribution formula.  The formula suggests that Manchester has a reduced number of people with learning disabilities than the general UK population and so the funding will be reduced.  This also applies to older people in that there are less older people in Manchester than in equivalent populations elsewhere.  However, Manchester's population at risk estimates are also hit by the weighting of risk towards older age as people are dying at an earlier age or having worse health conditions are not taken into account as factors.  As the funding is not ring fenced then the funding cuts will be affect the whole programme equally.

Manchester Supporting People sent a response to the funding allocation (deadline 14 January).  In general the funding is set to reduce by 7.8% over the next 3 years.  In 2003 the funding was £41 million whereas in 2011 this looks as if it will have been reduced to £35 million.  The LAA could affect the proportion of funding for SP services but this will be dependent upon their priorities (as mentioned above).  Manchester SP has never had to cut a service due to lack of funding.  Instead the providers have worked together with SP to make efficiency savings and Sally Hobbs thanked providers for their continued commitment to being innovative, resourceful and creative to help reduce the risk of this happening.

The Manchester SP administration grant is also very low compared with other local authorities.  Over the next 3 years the admin grant will be reduced by £87,000.  Sally Hobbs reassured the group that Manchester Supporting People will retain their commitment to service users, the CUG and providers.

Inflation

Unfortunately Supporting People currently have no definite answer in relation to awarding inflation to providers this year.  Supporting People are currently taking soundings from other departments whilst realising that by not awarding inflation last year it has had a knock on effect for provider's budgets.  Recommendations will go to the Commissioning Group on 6 February and will be based on the financial viability of awarding inflation.  Supporting People are looking at the different options available.  For instance, awarding an inflation uplift at different levels or if an uplift was not awarded then to look to increase the level of hardship fund and access to the fund.

Eva Holt expressed concern that  the outcomes produced will not reflect the achievements made and won't provide the evidence to show that the outcomes have been met particularly in regard to older people.  Keith Walmsley agreed that it is difficult to measure one person's outcomes against PI's and so it looks like the service is not performing.  Nick Jones said he had been working with Sheffield SP on incorporating 'distance travelled' outcomes with the CLG ones to get more representative outcomes.

Nick Jones asked whether SP have conducted research to show that they have spent X amount and, therefore, saved X amount - which would be useful in pushing the importance of services for the LAA?  Sally Hobbs will look into doing research research into this and then consult with Nick to develop it.

Sally commented that Supporting People have a number of new projects that are currently operating on a short-term basis because they cannot commit to the long term.  At present Supporting People have inherited a higher number of services than they have the funding for.  Pat Scappaticci asked whether the surplus money generated this year could be used to extend the funding of these services.  Sally confirmed that the services would be evaluated and recommendations made to the Commissioning Group for their approval.

Sally mentioned to the group that the Strategic Housing Partnership are launching a new group consisting of Chief Executives, RSL's, Chief Officers and a number of work stream champions.  Sally will be facilitating these meetings and so will look forward to reflecting the view of the PIF.

PIF Nominations

The closing date for nominations is Friday 25 January 2008.  At present elections will only be held if there are several nominations for one client group.  All attendees were in agreement not to exclude anyone who has been nominated as long as the group is representative of all client groups.  Sally Hobbs requested two members of the PIF (one short term service and one long term) for Supporting People to consult with regarding the nominations.  Alex Sporidou and Eva Holt were nominated.  Once the results have been complied, nominations will go out to elect a Chair and Vice Chair.  Form the results representatives will be sought from the PIF to attend the Core Strategy Group (please see meeting dates attached).

Individual Budgets (IB's)

Since the last meeting, Kath Hanna has met with Oldham SP team to look at their approach to IB's.  Kath will look to convene a meeting of all 13 pilot authorities and pull together good practice and voice their concerns surrounding IB's.  From this they can then look to organise a meeting with CLG to raise these concerns.

Steve Leonard asked if service users have been consulted regarding the roll out of IB's?  Sally assured the group that service users who already use IB's have been consulted.  The concern is that this has not been done with service users who do not use IB's or those who have concerns about them.  Steve highlighted the fact that the CUG would be concerned if the pilots do not involve service users.  Some providers raised their concerns that IB's will not be used for the intended care for the service user but on alternative items that they feel would aid their own care.  Caroline Campion asked how IB's link with accommodation-based support.  Warden support, for example - would this be included?  Sally said that this is something that the government have left the pilots to look at as it based on need of the individual as assessed by a support worker whereas social care is a package bought based on the needs highlighted.

Steady State Contracts (SSC's)

Supporting People have created a timetable for the roll out of SSC's.  Providers who fall within the first 2 years of the timetable will not have a SSC issued until after their review has been conducted.  Those after the first two-year period will have the SSC issued approximately by the end of March - April.

6.  Provider Feedback

No provider feedback was given.

7.  Agenda Items and Venues for Future Meetings

It was agreed that the agenda would follow the same agenda items of today's meeting.  The venue for the next meeting was kindly offered by Elaine Karagah from Christian Alliance Housing Association and will be held at the Limes (parking at rear of building).

8.  Any Other Business

Mike Delaney suggested an idea for the future of Supporting People.  Currently providers conduct self assessments and SP also assess them.  Mike's proposal was that in furture providers become self-regulatory alongside service users 50/50.  Having a 50/50 split with the service users would help show that the scheme is equally balanced.  He suggested that the CUG could be commissioned to run this as a pilot and conduct research into this option, that would also help with the funding of the CUG.

Date of Next Meeting

Wednesday 12 March, 2008 - 13.130 - 16.00
The Limes, 76 Daisy Bank Road, Victoria Park, Manchester, M14 5GL.