Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Adults and Communities, which provided an overview of the provision of the Community Life Choices (CLC) framework, which included day services and personal assistants. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 12’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following points were made:

i.          A Member queried if some of the services were provided out of the county area, and if any what were the numbers of individuals supported and the implications for transport costs. The Assistant Director reported that the framework supported just under 600 individuals, all with in-county providers. Contracts were for Leicestershire-based provision, and while there might be a small number supported out-of-county, further data will be provided to Members following the meeting. It was further noted that some providers might be located just outside the geographic area of the county, but the majority of provision was within the county and the market was actively monitored to ensure there was sufficient supply and minimal need for out-of-county placements.

ii.          The council was responsible only for individuals residing within Leicestershire County Council’s boundaries. Leicester City Council might place individuals into county commissioned services, but they would hold their own contracts and fund those placements independently. Previously, when the County Council operated internal day services, there was some usage from Leicester City, but that provision no longer existed.

iii.          In response to a question, it was noted that at the time of transitioning to the CLC framework, it had shown a significant cost saving. In-house services carried fixed staffing costs and void costs when not used to capacity. Under the CLC model, only services delivered were paid for, and there was improved efficiency. In addition, the CLC provision was subject to robust quality assurance and contract monitoring. Officers conducted regular checks, engaged with service users, and reviewed feedback through social workers and direct contacts.

iv.          A Member sought clarification on the data presented asking whether the figures included carers or were limited to individuals receiving services. It was reported that the data referred solely to the cared-for individuals. In addition it was clarified that the table only reflected individuals accessing services through the council’s commissioned frameworks, and that there was a separate cohort of individuals who used direct payments to independently procure services, and figures for the cohort would be provided to Members.

v.          A Member queried whether the stated expenditure of £8.6million on CLC services excluded transport and direct payment recipients, having expressed a need to understand the full cost of supporting individuals with assessed needs, including those outside the framework. The Assistant Director confirmed that comprehensive cost data, including direct payments, would be shared with the Committee. Officers added that direct payments were primarily about offering individuals choice and flexibility, rather than being a result of the council’s inability to commission services.

vi.          A Member also raised concerns regarding the commissioning bandings and hourly rates, specifically whether they met national minimum and living wage requirements. It was questioned whether individuals employing personal assistants (PAs) directly were expected to cover employer costs such as national insurance, and whether the banding structure reflected this financial responsibility. It was clarified that Band F, which covered community one-to-one support at £21.47 per hour, applied to agency-employed PAs rather than those directly employed by the cared-for person. Band E (£17.14 per hour) was used for additional care elements on top of existing packages. Bandings were calculated based on average weekly earnings and took into account living wage benchmarks. It was also noted that the Council was reviewing its uplift mechanisms as part of the recommissioning process to ensure alignment with national standards. Officers concluded that services were uplifted annually to reflect inflation and wage changes. A more detailed breakdown of models, bandings, and payment structures would be presented to the Committee in November.

vii.          A Member questioned how the service model could actively work to engage with and utilise existing community services to enhance the offer and reduce costs. Officers commented that there was commitment to ensure services were community-focused, with many provisions already utilising local assets, but access was often dependent on the level of support individuals required. For example, a personal assistant might enable someone to visit the library or leisure centre. Support packages were tailored to individual goals, such as travel, training or confidence-building to access services independently. In addition, officers were exploring how providers could support independent living skills, with incentives to encourage innovation. Over the long-term, it could benefit both the council and the individuals supported.

RESOLVED:

a)    That the Overview of Community Life Choices (Day Services) report be noted.

b)    That the Director be requested to circulate information to Members on:

o   The number of people accessing day services external to the Council.

o   The number of people external to the County Council accessing services.

o   The number of people using direct payments to access services from providers.

Mr Nick Chapman left the meeting at this point and did not return.