COMMUNITY CARE GRANTS AND CRISIS LOANS FOR LIVING EXPENSES – SUCCESSOR ARRANGEMENTS IN SCOTLAND STAKEHOLDER EVENT 13th June

Consultation Devolved funding will continue to address similar needs to existing provision Qualified support for grants not loans Local delivery favoured, with some qualifications e.g. a nationally agreed set of criteria Local Government the most widely suggested local delivery agent; Scheme should offer a mixture of goods and grants Budgeting and money management support should be offered but not compulsory Appeals process should include an independent element.

Delivery by Local Government LG has clear benefits as a provider: Provides existing support to the relevant client groups – better outcomes for users National infrastructure in place Reliable delivery in a tight timescale Concerns among leaders but agreed to take on delivery of interim successor arrangements.

Opportunities and Challenges +Provision more closely linked to the needs of users – links to holistic support and early intervention. +Improved delivery making best of local opportunities and meeting local needs. - Balancing supply and demand at a time of great change in the benefits system and poor employment opportunities - Tight timetable for delivery in a high profile area of critical importance to vulnerable people.

Legislation Interim arrangements – Section 20 of Local Govt Act 2003 – Power to Advance Wellbeing. Guidance from Ministers on criteria and elements of process. Section 30 Order to allow for delivery of social security. Longer term – primary legislation to support the permanent scheme.

Data for Scotland Estimated budget for fund is £23-25m Plus set up and implementation costs ApplicationsAwards Crisis loans for living expenses204,000156,000 Community Care Grants79,00038,000

Outline Timeline April – Design Group discuss high level scheme May – gather information and verify practicalities, equalities impact, legislation etc. June – Stakeholder events. Work on Guidance July to Dec – Detailed planning and implementation, joint SG/LG announcement, development of form, IT, distribution of funding, training materials, on-going consultation and engagement. Jan to March 2013– gearing up for implementation, training, testing, communication. April – Go live April onwards – monitoring and evaluation, consultation and legislation for permanent arrangements.

Scottish Community Support Fund The Scottish Community Support Fund will offer grants or in kind support such as travel warrants, fuel cards, furniture etc in order to: provide a safety net in an emergency or when there is an immediate threat to health or safety enable independent living or continued independent living, preventing the need for institutional care. The grants will not need to be paid back.

Key Features Scottish Government owns the fund. Local Government administrates it according to Ministerial guidance under Power to Advance Wellbeing. National ring fenced budget to be split according to a funding formula – split between crisis and community care Guidance to specify national criteria for eligibility and a common application form for all Councils. Scottish Government may also provide information on good practice e.g. taking a whole Council approach, access to affordable credit, furniture re-use etc. There will be standard processes for reviewing decisions which applicants do not agree. If at all possible, this will include an independent element. Guidance will set realistic target processing times for applications.

Likely Users Not targeted on specific groups but examples of likely users are: disabled people lone parents unemployed people older people care leavers homeless people ex offenders carers.

Eligibility will be determined by: Receipt of qualifying benefits Certain restrictions e.g. relating to residence or previous applications. Exclusions for specific items not covered by the fund Limits on other resources, savings, capital Personal circumstances meeting the conditions set.

Award of a grant will be determined by: The priority attached to the application – determined by the severity of need and the impact an award would have on the applicant’s circumstances. Whether there is money in the budget.

Focusing Eligibility We know that we need to focus eligibility because of: A real terms cut in budget Anticipated higher demand for grants than loans Potential increased need for crisis support as a result of cuts to benefits budget and difficulty in managing the transition to monthly benefit. But/ we want to make sure that the grants achieve their stated objectives and support those most in need.

A grant may be paid in event of: Crisis - In an emergency or disaster to avoid serious damage or risk to health or safety In support of independent living to: help people set up home/establish themselves in the community help people remain in the community help people to care for a prisoner or young offender

Options for Eligibility CC and crisis applications conditional on receipt of specified DWP benefits both the person applying and the person to be cared for meet the eligibility criteria. A limited number of applications in a set period. No re-application for same circumstances or items in a set period A maximum payment The applicant must not have more than a specified amount in savings or capital Narrowing travel payments. Extending exclusions, for example to cover all debts, maternity expenses.

Possible Customer Journey

Review Judicial review through courts Options for Independent Review First tier review, independent of decision maker but within the team Applications go to decision maker 2 instances last year? 57.7% CCGs18.9% CLs initially refused (UK figs) 29% CCGs and 16.6% CLs go to first review 42% CCGs and 27.5% CLs rejected at first tier review go on to Independent review In Scotland – 5243 CCG’s 3185 CLs (excluding budgeting loans) to independent review

Questions for Table Discussion 1.Do you agree with the core purpose of the successor arrangements? 2.How best can we manage the budget to ensure the funds are targeted on those most in need? What eligibility criteria should we set to manage demand? 3.What would the impact be of restricting crisis payments to applicants in receipt of DWP benefits? 4.What particular issues should we take into account for equalities groups when we are designing the successor arrangements: age, disability, gender (including pregnancy and maternity), lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender, race, religion and belief? 5.How can independent review best be achieved, bearing in mind the need for proportionality and affordability? Options already identified are peer review, a cross Council review panel, Elected Member review, an independent mediator/dispute resolution. 6.Scottish Community Support Fund is a working title. What should we call the successor arrangements? Should we treat it as one scheme or two?