Collen Sweeney – Chief Officer for Sudbury Citizen Advice
Carol Eagles – Bureau Manager for Citizens Advice Mid Suffolk
BDC Cabinet Member for Communities
MSDC Cabinet Member for Communities and Housing
Minutes:
9.1 The Chair introduced Colleen Sweeney, Chief Officer for Sudbury and District Citizens Advice and Carol Eagles, Manager for Citizens Advice Mid Suffolk and invited them to begin their presentation.
9.2 Carol Eagles provided an overview of the Citizens Advice and stressed that each Citizen Advice (CA) was part of the National Citizens Advice but that each organisation was a local funded independent charity. The CA provided advice to over 6000 people across the two districts by providing help by phone, face to face contacts, visits, emails and web chats. Approximately 40% of the advice services were face to face. They also operated an Out-reach Service and were often able to reach residents in rural areas through this service. Services were mainly provided by local volunteers, supported and managed by a small core team.
9.3 Benefit issues were the biggest, and debt was the second biggest area for advice to be provided.
9.4 Colleen Sweeney then provided statistics for the financial circumstances for the clients they helped and the kind of groups the CA could reach.
9.5 The work provided by the CA saved the local and national Government £8.1M per year and generated social and economic benefits of £48.1M. The figures helped to provide the financial benefits gained by the advice and services provided by the CA.
9.6 In addition, the CAs also received funding from a variety of other funders, some of which specified for what purpose the funding could be used, excluding funding for items such as core costs. It was a challenge to secure sustainable sources of funding as funding was usually provided on an annual basis. This had to be considered in context to the fact that the demand for CA services was increasing.
9.7 The CA had become the main support for the completion of benefit forms and there was a concern that any instability in economic climate would put pressure on the provision of services. However, careful strategic planning was applied to ensure that the CAs in Babergh and Mid Suffolk would be financially sustainable for the near future, despite the change in funding from SCC.
9.8 The funding provided by Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils was the main funding for the two CAs. Managers explained that further funds would need to be identified to enable the CA to complete the three-year Business Plan as required for sustainable businesses and charities.
9.9 The Chair thanked Colleen Sweeney and Carol Eagles for the presentation and asked for clarification on the funding issues for SCC and CCG.
9.10 It was confirmed that the decision was made by SCC last year and had resulted in the funding being cut by 50% for 2019/20 and withdrawn completely for 2020/21. This had left the CAs with a consequential funding gap which had been partly recovered with funds provided by the CCG, who had agreed to fund 50% of SCC’s original funds for both 2019/20 and 2020/21.
9.11 It was confirmed that talks were still on-going with SCC and the CCG with regards to future funding for the CA and the managers were optimistic for a resolution.
9.12 Councillor Otton asked how much SCC funding was lost and Members were directed to the tabled infographics, which detailed that SCC funded the CA Sudbury and District with £45K and the CA Mid Suffolk with £41K for 2018/19.
9.13 Councillor Grandon appreciated that the CA had a core cost, however she asked for clarification of what kind of cost was incurred by the volunteers.
9.14 Volunteers travel expenses were paid for by the CA and any other costs to enable volunteers to volunteer. Specialised and CPD training was on-going, as regulations and guidelines were updated and changed. Training costs was a large part of the budget, the largest cost being the provision of supervision and management costs.
9.15 Councillor Otton explained as a County Councillor she had received information which had formed part of the SCC decision for the CAs funding and the number of referrals to the CA and she would like clarification of this issues. However, she had three further questions to ask:
· At what stage did the Suffolk CAs have talks with SCC and District Councils to avoid the funding crisis which occurred last year.
· How much did the CA work with Trading Standards, as many of the scams are detected by them;
· How many single men contacted the CA for advice on the allocation of social housing?
9.16 Carol Eagles responded to the questions in reverse order and said that the CA helped a lot of single and especially homeless men, however the majority of clients were female.
9.17 The CA works closely with Trading Standards covering areas such as scam awareness and fraud. She then provided examples of such co-operation. The banks were also good at informing the CA of fraud issues.
9.18 In response to the first question, it was clarified that the CA had a duty to be financially stable, which required that reserves were held to ensure sustainability and the ability to draw on these to function for a period of time. As a charity it was prudent to have savings.
9.19 Councillor Muller enquired how many parents with children were referred to the local food bank by the CA.
9.20 Carol Sweeney would provide an answer to this outside the meeting and added that the CA helped with many other aspects of family life and provided grants for various items such as school uniforms and football boots.
9.21 Councillor Welham asked four questions:
· Did the CA have a waiting list for access to advice and services;
· Did the CA have any drop-in sessions in the evening or weekends for people who were working;
· Did the two CAs measure the impact of their services, for instance how debt was managed;
· Was there a cross-over between the border to neighbouring Councils and was there any financial arrangement in place to accommodate this?
9.22 Collen Sweeney clarified that the CA did have some evening drop-in sessions and Saturday morning openings, the issues being that other organisations and services were closed and limited provision for help. The CA was open during Christmas and New Year and provided referral to foodbanks. The CA also had its own advice information system and received a large amount of views during 2018/19.
9.23 There were arrangements in place between CAs for cross-border services.
9.24 In response to debt advice and lowering debt levels there had in the past been a post to cover this particular area in the CA – Sudbury and District to conduct the casework for clients. There had also been an on-going project with Babergh, however the CA decided to halt this project until a dedicated person was in post for this area.
9.25 There was data collected on waiting times for drop-in sessions and the average waiting times were five to ten minutes.
9.26 In response to Councillor Caston’s question it was clarified that the CA was able to reach many ‘hard to reach’ residents in rural areas, because of the options of making home visits. General Practitioners also contacted the CA to inform them of patients, who required assistance.
9.27 The Chair read a question forwarded by Councillor Scarff:
Were there substantial different types of funders, particularly outside bodies such as charities, trusts etc. (This may well prove useful to know)
If this was the case, were they on a service level type arrangement and if so for how many more years would they be in place, as this could also impact on their financing going forward.
9.28 Colleen Sweeney responded that most provision of funding was on an annual basis and the CA would not know how much would be available until April or May of each year. This made it difficult to plan ahead as there was never any guarantee of a steady funding stream. She would forward the Annual Financial report to Members after the meeting.
9.29 The Babergh Cabinet Member for Communities, Councillor Derek Davis and the Mid Suffolk Cabinet Member for Communities and Housing, Councillor Julie Flatman were present to answer questions.
9.30 Councillor Flatman stated that the CA was invaluable for the community and the first point of call for many residents. She felt if there was to be less funding for the CA then there was a likelihood that debt issues would increase.
9.31 She also pointed out that staff and volunteers needed proper training in dealing with violent people and that training needs had to be assessed on a local basis. She continued that Mid Suffolk District Council funded CA – Mid Suffolk on an annual basis of £86,700.
9.32 Colleen Sweeney explained that there was a National Business Plan for the CA and that CAs worked together but had to work independently due to local needs for diversity. Both Managers had approximately sixty volunteers to manage in addition to paid staff, apart from managing the strategic side of the organisation. To train volunteers required flexibility to accommodate their needs and it was difficult to share this across the two districts, as each organisation had to manage internal issues and requirements.
9.33 Councillor Davis said that Babergh District Council paid £53,500 towards the revenue costs for the CA -Sudbury and District to the year up to 2020 and a further £7,673 to the CA - Ipswich. He stated that often organisations such as Trading Standards directed cases through the CA.
9.34 Councillor Davis explained that the District Councils could not increase funding to the CA as other funding losses from the SCC had to be covered by the Councils.
9.35 Councillor Otton asked for clarification on how the CA would proceed with the budgeting, assuming that the CA, SCC and District Councils were all working together to avoid a crisis like the one from last year.
9.36 Caroline Eagles responded that the financial resources were sustainable to ensure the services could continue.
9.37 Councillor Davis responded that he would like SCC to reconsider the decision to withdraw the funding for the CA, and he was encouraged that talks were still on-going, but other funders had to be identified and a structured programme would help this. Also, the recruitment of volunteers was a competitive market, making it a challenge for all Charities.
9.38 Councillor Maybury said that in their role as Councillors, Members came into contact with professionals who would be able to volunteer, and she thought that perhaps engagement with Members to recruit volunteers from this group would be useful.
9.39 Councillor Jan Osborne agreed with Councillor Maybury and specified that lobbying of SCC should continue.
9.40 Councillors Muller, Caston, Adrian Osborne and McCraw all agreed that the CA did invaluable work and that residents would suffer, if not enough funding was found to support the CA. The organisation conducted value for money services and the District Councils need to commit to continue steady funding.
9.41 It was generally agreed that continuing lobbying of SCC was required.
9.42 Councillor Welham said that the Committee had a role to scrutinise the service of the CA to find a better way forward. The Committee could ensure that there was publicity of the District Councils’ scrutiny of the service and that this might urge others to grant funds.
9.43 Councillor Ayres endorsed the need for funding and lobbying of SCC, the publicity for the Scrutiny of the CA and the recruitment of professional people to volunteer for the CA.
9.44 Councillor Adrian Osborne said that some Parish Councils provided funding for the CA in Sudbury, and that these small amounts all helped to sustain the CA.
9.45 The Mid Suffolk Cabinet Member for Communities and Housing, the Babergh Cabinet Member for Communities and the Babergh Cabinet Member for Housing agreed that both Councils had to pledge funding for the respective CA for the next three years.
9.46 Members agreed that both Councils should maintain minimum funding to the CA and that further scrutiny of the value, and the impact of the services provided by the CA should be scrutinised in more detail.
9.47 The Chair suggested that this scrutiny process was proposed to all Councils across the County and Members agreed.
It was RESOLVED: -
1.1 That the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommends to both Cabinets that the current minimum funding for the Citizens Advice be maintained for the next three years.
1.2 That the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee approach the Chairs of the Scrutiny Committees and Scrutiny Governance Officers of East Suffolk Council, West Suffolk Council, Ipswich Borough Council and Suffolk County Council, with a view of setting up a county-wide scrutiny process to examine funding and the impact on Citizens Advice and the services of Citizens Advice.
1.3 That the Chairs of the said Scrutiny Committees be supplied with a report from Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the topic of Citizens Advice based on this Committee meeting as a basis for the scrutiny process.