44

1 Date: 07 October 1997

NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL

REPORT

Ref: GU'IPHHI-L,~

Housing Committee ITn- From: Director of Housing

1

1.1

1.2

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

3

3.1

a m s i i v %x

Introduction

Reference is made to previous reports on ths subject to the June 1997 and August 1997 Housing Committees.

The purpose of this report is to advise the committee of the outcome of the bid for challenge funding, under the Rough Sleepers Initiative (RSI).

Background

The Council, in partnership ui th a range of agencies, submitted a bid for RSI Challenge funding in July 1997 comprising of the following elements.

e Outreachhesettlement workers (2) e Provision of direct access hostel 0 Project Manager

On 3 October 1997 the Scottish Office announced the outcome of the RSI challenge fund bids and a copy of the letter is contained in Appendix 1.

The Council has been awarded f41,000 to fund 2 outreachhesettlement workers for an initial period of 12 months. It was felt that the extent and nature of the rough sleeping problem in North Lanarkshire should be assessed further and that, following this, future bids for further funding would be considered.

A total of f10.98m has been allocated to local authorities over 3 years. This leaves just over f5m which will be available to fund bids following further research into the problem of rough sleeping.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the committee

45

i> note the contents of this report.

ii) Accept the offer of grant and appoint 2 outreach uorkers in accordance with the proposals contained ir! the Rough Sleepers Strategy submitted to the Scottish Office.

iii) Agree to the preparation of future bid submissions follou-ing further analysis of the problem of rough sleeping in 'North Lanarkshire.

iv) Refers this report to the Personnel Services Committee in order to progress the appointment of the 2 outreach workers.

4 Background Information

4.1 Background information is available from the Housing Department.

GaG-in Whitefield Director of Housing

Edinburgh E H 6 6QQ

Telephone 0 1 3 1 -244 F-0131-244

Gavin Whitefield Esq Director of Housing North harkshire Council Municipal Buildings Kildonan Street COATBRIDGE ML53LF

Dear Mr Whitefield

Your ref: GSW/PWLCH

3 October 1997

ROUGH !&EEPERS IM[TLATIVE

Scottish office Circular No 11/97 of 28 February invited local authorities, in partnership with others, to assess the extent of rough sleeping in their areas and to submit proposals for addressing the needs

An Advisory Group, chaired by The Scottish Office, and including representatives of COSLA, the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, Shelter, Scottish Homes and the voluntary sector considered all the proposals received and provided advice to the Secretary of

for f the Advisory Group's report is e - ts of the proposals. A

The Secretary of State has now considered the Group's recommendations and has approved the allocation of a total of €10.98 to a range of projects proposed by a number of local authorities.

In considering the proposals submitted, the Secretary of State took account of the fact that many authorities said they wished to undertake further assessment of the needs of the rough sleepers in their area before developiiig long term solutions, others considered that further work was required in assessing the extent of the problem. In addition the advisory group considered that some proposals were premature and M e r analysis would be beneficial before expensive projects were embarked upon The Secretary of State has therefore decided to allocate only a proportion of the overall €16 million identified for the Initiative at this time, so that funding may be available at a later date when the further work has been completed.

- Y l l ,. -3 .

@- G:RSI.DECNL.CEH

47

Project 1997-98 (5 months)

2 outreach workers for 12 Revenue 16,800 months

Consistency of allocation

1998-99 1999-2000 Total

24,200 - 41,000

In considering all the proposals received, the Advisory Group noted that similar posts were graded at different levels and that proposals contained a wide variety of support costs, from rent and equipment to travel and subsistence. An inconsistent approach had also been taken to inflation costs. In the light of these differences, the Advisory Group recommended:

Grant allocation

that outreach workers be funded up to the AP4 maximum on the salary scale;

Capital - - - - 16,800 24,200 - 41,000

that an additional 10% of employment costs be allowed as a contribution towards travel, accommodation and other support costs; and

that the GDP deflator be used to uprate the grant allocation as of 1 April 1998 and 1 April 1999.

Grant Allocation

The Secretary of State has approved funding to North Lanarkshire Council of €41,000. This award takes into account the fact that the extent of the rough sleeping problem in your area has not yet been sufficiently assessed. It was considered that the proposed solutions were premature. Rather than proceed immediately to the provision of new accommodation approval is given for 2 outreach workers to develop the Council’s proposals further.

The detail of the allocation is therefore as follows:-

Payment of grant

Payment of grant will be made to you by Scottish Homes. Payment will be subject to a formal Offer of Grant setting out the terms and conditions under which the grant is to be paid. This will ensure that payment is not made in advance of need, will set out the funding allocated over the three years of the Initiative and will provide for certification by local authorities that the grant has been used for the purpose intended. To this end local authorities will be required:

- to submit an invoice to Scottish Homes when fimding is required for each stage of the project concerned, for example, when recruitment of outreach or development staff has been completed; and

G:RSI.DECNL.CEH

48

- to submit a certificate to Scottish Homes, for the purposes of financial monitoring and public accountability, to confirm on the completion of each stage of the project that the grant has been used for the purpose for which it was provided.

Scottish Homes will issue its formal Offer of Grant by 24 October 1997. The grants will administered and paid through the head office of Scottish Homes, co-ordinated by the Head of Performance (Ian Williamson) who can be contacted at Scottish Homes, Thistle House, 91 Haymarket Terrace, Edinburgh, EH12 5HE Tel. 0131 479 5333, Fax 0131 479 5355.

Where an authority is unable to take up the planned allocation of grant within the financial year concerned, due, for example to delays in the recruitment of staff, then the unallocated grant will be held over by Scottish Homes and made available to the authority in the following financial year as and when funding is required. Any such flexibility however is subject to the overriding constraint that the approved allocation for funding for the Rough Sleepers Initiative is currently restricted to financial years 1997/98, 1 9 9 ~ 9 9 and 1999/2000.

Monitoring the Initiative

Authorities will be expected to monitor the progress and achievements of the projects which have been approved and to provide regular reports to The Scottish Office. Details of the format and content of these reports will be sent to you shortly. City authorities should note at this stage that information will be sought on the movement of rough sleepers between authorities, and particularly from peripheral areas to city centres.

Future bidding rounds

Guidelines will issue in early 1998 concerning f e r bids for funding from the Initiative.

Yours sincerely

LINDSAY MANSON

G:RSI.DECNL.CEH

49

REPORT OF THE ROUGH SLEEPERS AD\'ISOR\r' GROCP

OCTOBER 1997

Context

1. The Rough Sleepers Initiative .\&.isory Grocp \vas se: UF ti7 x iv i s t t h t C e c x r z r ~ L y f

State on the merits of bids received in response to the Rougn Sleepers hiti2tiL.e. Ti:? Initiative identifies €16 million over the nest 3 ? e m to be made avaiiable tc 2ddress tk.2 problem of rough sleepers (€4 million in 1997-98: f 5 million in 1995-99 and 2 /I mil!icz ir; 1999-2000). The funds will be adminisrered by Scortish Homes. Guideiines \\.ere issued ia local authorities and other interested organisations on 28 Februarl; 1997 Setting cui in ccrzii what their bids for funding would be expected to cover. LBfal authoriries were invited to 1s.d partnerships in developing bids, having identified the extent and the nature of the problem in their area.

.. -

Group Membership

2. The members of the Advisory Group \i-e:e 8s follo\\.s:

David Belfall (Chairman), The Scottish Office

Alan Davidson, Head of Housing, Fife Council (1 st meeting) )

1

1 1 1

Tim Huntingford, Director of Social Work and Housing,

Margaret Vass, Deputy Director Operations and Support,

West Dunbartonshire Council ) cosix

Glasgow City Housing (2nd to last meetings)

Liz Nicholson, Director, Shelter Scotland

Laurie Naumann, Director, Scottish Council for the Single Honicless

John Breslin. Director of Strateg?. 2nd Psrforrnmco. Scottish Hoines

S t e plie n Ebb i tt . D i rec t o r . S i rno 11 C c m n u n i r y ( G I as go \\.

G:iiSi..L\REPORT.C EH 1 .

50

blcctings

3.1 16 June to consider and asree its Lipprouch and a jciieduie ~:'intte:ings.

. . 3.2 13 August to consider for the first time all the bids 1vhii.h had bee:-, x c e : ~ ~ e ~ m C to identify additional information required before h a 1 consideration of' it bids:

. . 3.3 21 .4ugust to discuss particular areas o i bids \i.hic:? rqiiired cixif.catior? \\ :::: specific authorities:

, , 3.4 4 September to give further consideration of the bids and to cOrAjicc: :he t e n x oi this report to the Minister on the merits of each of the bids: ai?i

3.5 2 October to finalise advice. c

Terms of Reference

4. The Group had the following terms of reference:

The Advisory Group's role is to provide a h i c e to iAe Seci.ernp o,lcSrcrr~ oi! r;ie ri?e:.l.:.r of bids submitted by local authorities for. RSI Challenge Funding.

The GroupS advice should assume allocation of all of the €4 million available in 1997/98 and should advise on the allocation of all or part of the available ftrnding foi- 1998/99 and 1999/2000. A recommendation should be made on whether a second round of bidding wozrid be appropriate.

Conflict of Interest

Where a member of the advisor?; group has had an involvement in the preparation oj - a bid to the extent that there is n conflict of interest u.ith hidher role cis un impar-tin1 adviser, he/she should retire from the disctissioii of thnt bid.

Discussion of projects

5 . A summary of the bids received is attached 21 Armes A. Bids \vert recei\,ed from 16 authorities. including both rural and urban authorities. The tom1 amount of f i d i n g bi2 :;7r \vas ox'er f 2 6 million.

Gcneral issues arising out of Group's discussions

51

6.3 tvhether the proposals were an integra! p f i of 2 coherent a r k con1 ix:::; S;:-,-,::L~~ - . to address the problems of rough sleepers:

6.4 tvhether appropriate alternative approaches had been cor.si2sred:

6.5 the extent of commitment to the proposals frorn other p ~ t i ~ s . k ~ c h fer ri:t duration of the RSI and beyond:

. . 6.6 the extent of commitment to the projec;s De>'ond the I ;.tars i': :?.e ?.,Jx? Sleepers Initiative; and

c

6.7 the arrangements proposed for monitoring. --

Conclusions

7 . The conclusions and recommendations of the group are sz: OUT belovb. and in the attached schedule of recommended grant awards (Annex B). In discussing the bids rec=iL.ec. the Group noted some particular issues which were common to a numbs: of kids and iliese are discussed briefly below.

. .

Assessment of the problem

7.1 Bids were justified on the basis of an assessment of need which was carried out in a consistent format, in the main overseen by Shelter, throughout each of the bidding authorities. It was reco-&sed that the methodology used to assess the level of rough sleeping was more appropriate to city centres than to peripheral, smaller urban or rural areas. Together Edinburgh and Glasgow identified 95 rough sleepers. Only a few rough sleepers were identified in Dundee and Aberdeen. The Group \vas concerned to note the level of rough sleeping identified in smaller authorities such as Perth and Kinross (12 rough sleepers) Fife (8) and North Lanarkshire ( 7 ) . In a number of cases the group recommended that further development tvork be funded to develop the information available on rough sleeping in particular areas.

The Bids

G . RS I ..4 REPORT.CEl-I 5

52

7 . 2 The Advisor]; Group considered that some bids \vex crez:xurc. i ~ . ?:$posing :: bricks and mortar solution to the prob1er.i. iiitlioiit first e x u r i n s t h : :ypro;:iatc outreach services are in place. The .Ui.isory Group's \.iei\. is r t i r fc ic t i ir, i:s recommendations in a number of cases.

7 .1 Some authorities have significant esperiencs of dez!ing i~i:!i n q i i sie5;ing Some of the elements of the bids put fomard by these authorities \vex ] \e! ! tkcugh1 through and should make substantial ccntributions to t z c k h g roilgi? slee?irig.

needed further work before their funding could be justified. However, some other elements - particulai]; concerning xcoii-iTncdxic7r. - c.ml:. , .

7.5 The Advisory Group noted the particular rob lems of authorirics on the edge of the cities who found it difficult to establish a firm knonkdge of cross border movement of rough sleepers. The Advisory Group consider that funher co-operxi\..- work is required between authorities to assess the level of cross border i11ovezex io ensure that appropriate facilities are provided where they are mosi needed.

Allocation

7.6 Having assessed the bids, the Group came to the conclusion that it wouid be inappropriate to allocate all of the €16 miliion at this stage. Some of the proposals were not sufficiently developed, and others required some further discussion before a final allocation could be agreed.

7.7 The Advisory Group discussed the question of where, in the context of this Initiative, it should draw the line between funding measures to tackle rough sleeping directly, to prevent rough sleeping and to tackle homelessness. It was recognised to be important for the solutions proposed to be set firmly within a strategy u-hich encompasses the provision of move on accommodation. suppon etc. At the same time the Group considered that some proposals were too far removed from addressing a rough sleeping problem, and were more appropriate to local authorities' single homeless strategies or health boards' responsibilities.

Partnership and complementary funding

7.5 The Group noted and commended the very signiiicmt conrricurion r a i e 10 each of the bids from 3 wide range of organisaions in the voluntav sector. encompassing housing. hfalth. counselling and social sen.ices. I-lo\\.e\.rf:. i t nored

strategy groups preparing the proposals. there \vas little cor,squenrin! f inxcir i ! or other contribution short or long tcrm to the proposed wIL:tio!-s.

that \vhile sonic3 Health Boards and other staiutor) ax!iorities h d C e z in-,u!\.cs . . ::: rlie

G:RSI.AREPORT.CEH 3 .

53

7.10 The Rough Sleepers Initiative Gui&!ines vex clear in :!-!?ir i n t c , t i ~ r t h x IS: funds should not to be used to replace existing pro\.ision or to hind projtcts ~viiici? were properly the responsibility of the l o c i authority or oIhers. The C;:~?ur, p i x d importance on this requirement, Lvhilst recognising that. in somt esce~tioi-.ci circumstances it would be appropriate to fund replas5ment facilities \vilere the RSI contribution had been adequateiy justified. ar;c there \vas significant contr ihr icr , ixr other partners.

Capital and Revenue funding

. , 7.1 1 revenue funding. Whilst t i u s is to an extent inevitable, especially given the need for further development of strategies and bids through research and s u e s working. it coos raise the question of support after the RSI three year period is over. T;\;hilsI \vs xvouic expect later bids to place more emphasis on capital costs. such capital espendirure \viii bring with it associated revenue costs which $111 need to be me: in the shon 2 ~ c t k

long term either by the partners or by the RSI.

The Advisory Group noted the significant S p h a s i s in all the bids .,,,,1.ec -=,-a' cr.

7.12 The Group noted the variable commitment b? local authorities and others to the long term future of the proposals beyond the 3 year period of the present Initiative. This is a matter of concern, since much of the work being put in hand is very likely to need to be sustained beyond the 3 year period of the R o u ~ h Sleepers Initiative. as currently planned.

Comparability between bids

7.13 The Group noted that similar posts in different proposals were graded at different levels (for example outreach workers). The Group acknowledged that the = orading of posts was a matter for individual authorities but took the view that in a couple of cases the grading \vas excessive. The Group's recommendations reflect this.

7.14 In instances bvhere contract researckloutrexh ivorkers \\'ere to be emplo>.?d. bids contained a wide v3rio:y of support costs. from r e a and equipmen: to tr,?\.c! w.2 subsistence. The Group considered that all bids should be oK?:cii a simi!ar le\.?! of support for such items. and. in the light of the pannersliip approach Lvhich had been adopted. have recommended that all such bids Do allo\ved. 2s sxndxd. m xlditic.ni7.i I09 b of employment costs.

G:RSl.hREPORT.CEH

54

I? c'c o rn m c n d :I t i o n s

S . The Group's recommendations xi' as f o l l ~ ~ \ \ ~ s : -

8.3 As regards the remaining funding. the Ad\.isoq. Group re,ccr-:-.c& t h i - I - L. .er< should be a second round of bidding in the fix qums: of l?OS. 21-2 ;=cssibl>' a -:-:-: l l i I - . L

round in the first quarter of 1999.

- . . . . . . 8.3 The AdvisoF Group recommends that in ad\.ar.c= of L k s t XXK TicZing rouxk there should be dialogue with authorities to ensure that bids z z neil faclnded 7 - t L.1

supported, and are put forward in a fundable forin. s

5.4 The Advisory Group further recommends that ci? authorities a d au1norities oi: their borders should be encouraged to co-operate in restz~c'ning coss-bordor movements of rough sleepers. with a view to making appropriarc provision in their "home" authorities for rough sleepers or potential rough sleepers v>.ho gravitate to the cities.

8.5 If the Minister wishes, the Advisory Group would be prepzred io rezain in being to take forward the recommendations at paras 5.2. 5.3 and 5.4 above and to put forward further recommendations on funding as appropriate.

G ; RS 1. A RE 1'0 RT. C E H 6 .

55

)id I 1997198 f I

ROUGH SLEEPERS ISITIXTIVE: SL31>1-4Rl. OF BIDS

1995199 f 1 1999100 f ~ Tors1 S i 1

!

h n d e e

Cast Lothian

Zdinburgh

- 7,- -_ - j 957.478 I i.695.177 I -.40: .--

I - I

I Zc).GCO 1 I

5.576.000 1 - i 3 10.277

20.000

2-500*ooo I I 3.761.000

273147000 I

I

I I 1 West Lothian 52.100 118.100 124.100 z 34.3 00 Lanarkshire 1

1

Highland

Glasgow

[nverclyde

N & S Ayrshire N Lanarkshire

Perth &Kinross

Renfrewshire

Shetland

G:RSI.XREPORT.CEH

3.522.1-10 1 3.175.559 5.236.955

19,152 42.462 42.462 10.4.076

33,011 33.850 99.8 14

162.800

569.262

30.560 61.120

739.855

65.000 350.63 1

76.987

136.996

3 09.78 8

I 1.538,989 I 32.953 i

293*889 i

61,120 I 150.631 I 308-970 I

32.02; 13.527 3 1.437

90.700 107,925 111.163 I

I

7 .

56

SCHEDVLE OF RECO313IENDED GRANT X\Y.ARDS

I 1997!95 1 1995/99 1 1999'2000 Total 'roject I I

i I

I SLASGOW i

_.

wering streetwork, accommodation id resettlement.

DlATWRGH .pproval for a range of projects wering streetwork, accommodation nd resettlement.

'ERTH & KINROSS htreach and resettlement service inked to night shelter using Perth Aodel Lodging House ccommodation. Funding approved to darch 2000.

) W E E htreach and resettlement service lased on original proposals. Proposals o r replacement Comfort and Support Clentre require further development.

FIFE Zornerstone project for 6 months trial . Recognise that the outcome may lead to a further bid.

INVERCLYDE 1.5 outreach kvorkers for 2 \.ears 5 months.

RENFRE\YSHIRE 2 part time development \\ .orksrs f c r 2 years i tnonths.

52 1,000

137.000

70.300

141.535

i 2:ITl.OOO 1 1.440.000 4.iS1.000

1 1 I

-- i 309.000 ' /:9.900

I j I 293,900

I I

i 1

I ! 149,800 1 56.600 1 306,700

I

i I

10.100

G : RS I .A R E P0RT.C E i-! S .

57

Zunding for research for 12 months Aith an expectation a further bid for a letter developed * brokerage'/outreach ;ervice may follow thereafter.

, i

I 1

, . ,,, outreach workers for I 2 months. 1 1c.soo --.-oo - ! , I , / I j

?.ay follow

1 equivalent grade outreach Lvorkers 1 16.690 'S.SO0 <!).l!:(; ~

? ! - ;ORTH LANARKSHIRE

kcognise that thereafier 2 further bid I

1

i ~

1 j !

I I ;OUTH LANARKSHIRE

or 12 months.

VIOFUY , .5 outreach workers for 12 months.

I

I

, --

i : < < ;- i-: 14.600 ~ 20.900 --.- - - --

3IGHLAND I I ~

16.700 16.500 , I

WEST LOTHIAN No finding at present. Bid needs to be further developed particularly in relation to outreach and resettlement work and to assess the problem of cross border problem.

SHETLAND

I i

EAST LOTHIAN I ~

I I I

1 - i - I i I i I j i i

I i I

I

i i

I

, i I I 20-000 I

Research with matchng funding from h e authority.

I ABERDEEN I I ( I

1

No funding allocated.

20.000

TOTAL

G : RS I .ARE P0RT.C EH 9