microsoft word - public - post consultation report … · web viewmicrosoft word - public - post...

of 46

Kent County Council

GATEWAY SERVICE MANAGEMENT FEE

CONSULTATION REPORT

March 2015

To be published online at:

http://consultations.kent.gov.uk/consult.ti/GatewayManagementFee


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Consultation

A three month consultation with Gateway partners on proposed changes to the Gateway Service Management Fee was run from 1st October 2014 - 31st December 2014.

A full Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) was conducted prior to the development of

the proposal and was reviewed once the consultation had been completed.

The EqIA identified the protected characteristics which had the potential to be

negatively or positively impacted by the proposal.

Gateway partners were invited to respond to the consultation which consisted of a

questionnaire, available in both electronic and paper formats, along with an email contact

and postal address for written submissions.

Out of 130 consultees a total of 21 responses were received comprising:

1 paper questionnaire response; 18 online responses; 1 email response; 1 letter response.

Table 1 on the following page provides a summary of all responses received, aligned to

each of the questions.

Decision

Following the consultation, recommendations were presented to the Director and Head of

Service - KCC Customer Relationship on 5th February 2015 for consideration which took into

account the feedback obtained from the consultation and the EqIA.

The majority of organisations that do not currently pay a Gateway service management fee

advised that they will withdraw from Gateway as they are not in a financial position to

contribute. This would create an unknown customer impact to a wide cross section of

customers who currently access Gateway services and could potentially mean that

2

Gateway Service Management Fee Consultation Report

vulnerable customers are denied easy and convenient access to services. In addition, the

financial savings that the proposal aims to achieve would not be realised.

As such, the Director and Head of Service agreed that there will be no change to the current

Gateway service management fee arrangements.

Table 1 Summary Responses

Q2. Do you currently pay the Gateway Service Management Fee?

21% responded ‘yes’.

79% responded ‘no’.

Q3. Are you affected by the changes proposed to the Gateway Service Management Fee?

84% responded ‘yes’. 16% of the responses were from organisations that would see no change to their current service management fee.


Q3a. If Yes, please tell us how you are affected;

Overarching themes; Organisations’ ability to afford to continue to

operate from a Gateway if a service management fee is implemented;

Potential withdrawal of services from Gateways;

Customer impact on accessing services; Reduced partner contribution to supporting

wider social outcomes.

Q4. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed amendments to the Gateway Service Management Fee?

No reduction on the fee for government agencies or for private organisations.

39% responded ‘strongly agree’ 33% responded ‘agree’ 11% responded ‘neutral’ 11% ‘disagree’ 1% ‘not applicable’

3



A 50% discount for charities, KCC and LA commissioned services



Organisations irrespective of their charitable status that are currently delivering elements of the work program will pay the full fee if their presence in Gateway is to provide a government-funded programme or service.



The sliding scale reduction on the fee, based on number of days occupancy.

26% responded ‘strongly agree’ 42% responded ‘agree’ 16% responded ‘neutral’ 5% ‘disagree’ 5% ‘strongly disagree’ 1% ‘not applicable’

Q4. Please tell us why you ‘disagree’ with there being ‘No reduction on the fee for government agencies or for private organisations.’

Responses; Agencies will not be able to deliver their

service if fees are payable.

Q4. Please tell us why you ‘disagree’ with there being ‘a 50% discount for charities, KCC and LA commissioned services.’




Customer impact on accessing services; Increased cost to KCC and LA to provide

services.

Q4. Please tell us why you ‘disagree’ with there being ‘Organisations irrespective of their charitable status that are currently delivering elements of the Work Programme Programme will pay the

Overarching themes; No fees imposed for these groups; Withdrawal of services from Gateway; Negative impact on customers accessing services; Increase cost to KCC & LA.

4


full fee if their presence in Gateway is to provide a government-funded programme or service.’Q4. Please tell us why you ‘disagree’ with there being ‘a sliding scale reduction on the fee, based on number of days occupancy.’

Overarching themes; Withdrawal of services from Gateway; Difficult and costly to administrate.

Q5. Are there any other options that you would like to be considered?

Overarching themes; Free use for charities based in Kent or based

on annual income; One option is to build into the commissioning

agreement for services commissioned through KCC or the Local Authority a ‘term of agreement’ that Gateway buildings have to be listed as one of the locations from which they will deliver their services.

Investigate alternatives - reviewing the current costs to provide the Gateway Services.

Q6. Do you have any other responses on the proposed amendments to the Gateway Service Management Fee?




Diluting of the Gateway service offer; Administration of the service management fee

scheme.

Q7. We have completed an Equality Impact Assessment to see if the revision to the current Gateway Service Management Fee could affect anyone unfairly. We welcome your views on the assumptions we have made and the conclusions we have drawn.

Responses; Voluntary organisations who provide a service

may be unable to afford the fees; No responses - looks comprehensive; The EqIA seems comprehensive and

assumptions reasonable.

5


CONTENTS

Page

ii) Executive Summary 2

ii) Contents 7

1. Introduction 8

2. Background 9

3. Consultation Process 9

4. Equality Impact Assessment 10

5. Respondent Profile and Activity 15

6. Post Consultation 27

7


1. INTRODUCTION

Gateway provides enhanced access to public services by working in partnership across the KCC

Directorates. Partnering with services including Libraries, Registration & Archives; Community

Learning & Skills and Social Care, along with Local Authority (LA) services and over 150 partner

organisations to meet the needs of the local community.

The proposal reflects the Customer Service Policy themes by ensuring that there is consistency

across the Gateway network in the implementation of the Service Management Fee, along with

targeting KCC commissioners to ensure that VCS organisations are required as part of the KCC

commission agreement to deliver face to face services via Gateway.

The proposal aims to help achieve the savings target identified in the Medium Term Financial Plan

(MTFP) without impacting on frontline services, and has been designed working in collaboration

with the LA Gateway Managers.

After consultation with the LA Gateway Managers, it was collectively agreed to take forward the

recommendations to a consultation with Gateway partners. An EqIA was conducted to accompany

the proposals.

Working with the KCC Consultation Team the proposal was subject to a three month consultation

with Gateway partners from 1st October 2014 to 31st December 2014. The responses were

reviewed to inform a further EqIA

This report outlines the responses received to the consultation and was presented to the Director

and Head of Service - KCC Customer Relationship on 5 th February. This report also outlines the

ultimate decision that was made.

2. BACKGROUND

The first Gateway charging model was developed during the Phase 1 programme and was led by

Tunbridge Wells Gateway. Since its introduction across all Gateways in 2008, the structure has

undergone various changes and updates to provide a fair and consistent model.

8


The current proposals for the Gateway service management fee were developed by the joint

Gateway Management team, consisting of both KCC and LA management, between August and

December 2013. These were released in January 2014 for wider discussion with the District

Management teams; however, feedback indicated that more time was required prior to

implementation which was planned for April 2014.

The consultation proposal was discussed with Gateway Managers and the LA Chief Executives

were asked to support the consultation via letter prior to the consultation start date. Chief

Executives met and discussed the proposal and agreed to feedback individually on the consultation.

This proposal aims to support both County and District revenue operating budgets by raising

income through external sources. Should the consensus lead to a collective decision to retain the

current charging structure, cost reductions cannot be achieved without impacting on front line

services. In this case, a more fundamental review of the shared funding model for Gateway will

become necessary.

3. CONSULTATION PROCESS

3.1 Stakeholder groups identified and targeted

130 consultees organisations and individuals were consulted as listed in Appendix 1. This includes

Gateway Partners; KCC Commissioners; KCC Heads of Services; KCC Members and LA Chief

Executives.

3.2 Consultation and communication methods used

The consultation proposal had the potential to affect a minority of Gateway partners. It was

therefore important to devise engagement mechanisms to provide the opportunity for participation,

being mindful of communication preferences and accessibility of information to ensure the target

audiences were engaged in a proportionate manner.

The consultation consisted of a questionnaire, Appendix 2 which was available in both electronic

and paper formats, along with an email contact and postal address for written submissions.

Alternative formats would have been accommodated if required; however, no requests

were received.

The LA Chief Executives were made aware of the consultation prior to Gateway partners 9


via letter and email and were then invited to provide feedback on the consultation.

The EqIA Appendix 3 identified protected characteristics which had the potential to be negatively

impacted by the proposed policies.

A dedicated web page http://consultations.kent.gov.uk/consult.ti/GatewayManagementFee was

created on the KCC website to provide consultation information and access to the online

questionnaire. An email address was provided for any email correspondence during the

consultation period.

4. EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

KCC is committed to providing the best level of customer service to all its customers. To ensure

this happens we need to take robust and relevant assessment of the likely impact of our work on

the diverse communities and individuals who live in Kent. The EqIA, aside from being a legal duty

for public bodies to complete, also provides a process to help us to understand how the proposal

may affect Kent residents from all communities.

The EqIA ensures that current and potential customers will not be discriminated against on the

grounds of their social circumstances or background, such as gender, race, colour, ethnic origin,

religion or belief, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation or age.

An Equality Impact Assessment was completed and approved by KCC’s Equality & Diversity Team

prior to consultation.

This proposal may impact on customers with different protected characteristics who currently

access services via Gateway. These groups of customers could be affected disproportionately,

depending on whether the Voluntary Community Sector (VCS) organisation in question delivers

services targeted towards these groups.

To ensure customers with protected characteristics are not negatively affected the following action

is required:

Targeting KCC commissioners to ensure that VCS organisations are required as part of the

KCC commission agreement to deliver face to face services via Gateway. Supporting

Independence and Opportunity outcomes framework by commissioning and designing

services with partners. 10



If there is an adverse effect and organisations are identified as potentially stopping service

delivery in Gateways then we expect to complete customer analysis with those services to

identify those with protected characteristics that will be affected and how they will be

impacted.

Development of referral pathways to ensure that customers can still access services in the

most appropriate way for them in line with Facing the Challenge and the Customer Services

Policy. Referral pathways are already in place with organisations that don’t currently operate

out of a Gateway and this is something that Gateway is continually developing locally to

meet customer needs.

The EqIA was reviewed after the consultation to enable KCC to respond to any new issues that

arose during the consultation to ensure no groups were disadvantaged.

Table 2 Equality Impact Assessment Action Plan

Protected Characteristic

Issues identified

Action to be taken

Expected outcomes

Owner Timescale

All No data available on the number of customers accessing services with protected characteristics

As part of the initial consultation ask consultees if they have any available data

Statistical data to ascertain the volume of customers that are accessing services with protected characteristics. None provided as part of the consultation.

Post consultation five organisations have stated that if the service management fee is introduced they will stop service delivery in

Julia Miller Ongoing

11


Gateways. We expect to complete customer analysis with those services to identify those with protected characteristics that will be affected and how they will be impacted prior to any implementation for these organisations.

All No data available on the number of customers accessing services with protected characteristics

KCC are reviewing the viability of a CRM system. Feed in the need to capture information on customers with protected characteristics to establish who is using the service and which groups are not engaging.

Accurate customer records and being able to review customer needs based on protected characteristics.

Post consultation five organisations have stated that if the service management fee is introduced they will stop service delivery in Gateways. We expect to complete customer analysis with those services to identify those with protected characteristics

Tim Watts Ongoing

12


that will be affected and how they will be impacted prior to any implementation for these organisations.

All

VCS organisations’ commissioned services have previously been given allocated space in Gateway with no financial outlay.

Targeting KCC commissioners to ensure that VCS organisations are required as part of the KCC commission agreement to deliver face to face services via Gateway.

VCS organisations deliver face to face services via Gateway with an internal recharge.


All

If a VCS is unable to contribute to a management fee to deliver their service from Gateway.

Customer analysis with those services to identify those with protected characteristics that would be affected and how they will be impacted

Development of referral pathways to ensure that customer can still access services.

Robust referral pathway options implemented by local Gateway Managers

Post consultation five organisations have stated that if the service management fee is introduced they will stop service delivery in Gateways. We expect to complete customer analysis with those services to identify those with protected characteristics that will be affected and


13


how they will be impacted prior to any implementation for these organisations.

Disability Access to online services.

Development of online access to services. Ensure that services are built to cater for the needs of people with access requirements such as: voice recognition for people with manual dexterity issues; screen magnification and good colour contrast due to partial sight and screenreaders (speech output programmes) to read out computer text.

Easy access to online services.


5. RESPONDENT PROFILE AND ACTIVITY

5.1 NUMBER OF RESPONSES RECEIVED

Total responses received 21 out of 130.

5.2 RESPONSE RATE AND METHODTable 3 below details the responses received via the various methods of response submission,

with response rates.

14


Response submission method Number of responses received

Response rate

Total completed paper questionnaires received 1 4.7%Total online questionnaires submitted 18 85.7%Total responses receive via email 1 4.7%Total responses received via letter 1 4.7%Total 21 100%

5.3 RESPONSE ANALYSIS

Please note: Customer responses (21) have been used for the following analysis. The responses to

each question are considered one at a time. Not every question had to be answered by

respondents and as a result the number of responses will not always add up to 21 each time.

15


Table 4 Summary of all consultation responses receivedCONSULTATION QUESTION CUSTOMER RESPONSEQ2. Do you currently pay the Gateway Service Management Fee?



16


Q3. Are you affected by the changes proposed to the Gateway Service Management Fee?

84% responded ‘yes’. 16% of the responses were from consultees that would see no change to their current service management fee.


17


Q3a. If Yes, please tell us how you are affected;

Overarching themes;

Organisations affordability to continue to operate from a Gateway if a service management fee is implemented;

Potential withdrawal of services from Gateways; Customer impact on accessing services; Reduced partner contribution to supporting wider social outcomes.

Comments included; We have no resources from which to fund any fees for use of Gateways; Price increase on our room hire; We would have to withdraw services as our budget could not meet these costs; As a small charity, we would have to move the drop-in to another venue if we were to be charged for

room use. The drop-in has now become embedded in the community, by moving the venue, we would lose the confidence of referrers and potential clients. It has taken us over two years to build up this confidence;

Any change in the charging structure - whether via a standard or discounted rate - will necessarily have an impact;

At present we do not pay to have a desk; If the management fee is imposed we will no longer be able to offer services from Gateway; It will affect whether we will still be able to deliver our service from your centre; As a charity all of our projects have a fixed income and project life. We accept there are fees payable

when we book space and resources at the Gateway. It is essential that we are able to forecast what these costs are going to be and include these into future bids for funding. Having a fixed % increase each year will allow us to predict these increases. However, we also have existing services where these charges were not foreseen and applying these fees will have a direct impact on our ability to fund these services and will in a small number of cases mean that we will be required to reduce sessions in order to pay the management fee;

We are a registered charity and we very much depend on donations from the public. Though it will not have a significant effect on our budget, it will still mean that we will have to put aside some money for this service. Besides, we also provide travel expenses to our staff to conduct the surgery at the Ashford Gateway Plus. If for some reason we are unable to conduct the surgery due to the management fee, all the elderly Gurkhas who have very poor or no language skills will be left in a very difficult position. Gateway will probably have to provide paid translators;

Working with the Gateways across Kent has proved very valuable and enabled our service to build relationships with other agencies. Working in Gateways is not only beneficial but also for all other partners working in Gateways as they are more aware of the services that can be used and often

18


refer their clients in to them. There has been a lot of work done to ensure equity of service within other agencies across Kent (such as probation and Job Centre Plus). However, it will have a big impact on the service in Thanet and Dover. Moving to different locations in these areas would increase barriers to accessing services among our most deprived client groups in Dover. If we were forced to pull out of this venue, it would have an extremely detrimental effect on the service that we offer in the locality. Not only is the Gateway centrally located, it also promotes partnership working and provides networking and promotional opportunities for the service. Clients all know how to find it and are happy to access services there. Client footfall is very good with a mix of drop-ins and referrals and the venue is easily accessible and reaches our demographic. We have use of either a desk space or private room in addition to use of printing/copying and computer facilities. People come in for not only council services but also to access the library. As a KCC commissioned service we cannot afford to pay to use the Gateways (even at half price) as this has not been accounted for. KCC have not allowed for this in our budget. However, we would like to be able to continue to support it in any way we are able. This could include:-

1) Placing volunteers to promote not only Health and Wellbeing services but also Gateway Services. Their training could be adapted with support from Gateway staff and other agencies using their premises to ensure a sound knowledge of the available services and referral pathways to increase referrals;

2) Supporting Gateway events in their locality.3) Supporting pop up Gateways in localised areas by promoting and attending (if there are no fees

attached). Also by utilising our contacts to find free venues if and where possible. We hope that we will be able to continue to use the Gateways free of charge but, if this is not possible, we will be able to find other venues in most districts. We could utilise the equity of service model already mentioned to ensure we are more visible in Children’s Centres, all Job Centres, Health Centres, etc. In some districts we may see a fall in figures. In the long term we may be able to use this as an opportunity to find and utilise other services, including those within the NHS, to ensure a wider provision with which we could reach clients we previously have not been able to.

Currently the majority of services delivering out of Gateway are KCC commissioned or 3rd sector organisations however, there are two organisations that deliver from the Gateway who are currently commissioned by the LA Currently these two organisations do not pay to deliver their much needed services from the Gateway, however in the new agreement they will be expected to pay. Due to budgetary restrictions for these organisations this could mean that they will stop delivering from the Gateway and this will be detrimental to our core offer community. As Universal Credit takes shape, we need to continue to work with these organisations delivering from the Gateway to ensure that we can provide the level of support required through the changes;

The changes being proposed will have a number of implications both in terms of administrative burdens as well as on established partnership working that delivers shared outcomes. The

19


operational implications will include increased work in relation to the invoicing process and related monitoring, recording and reporting. The implications for established partnership working include the risks that some partners will withdraw from the gateway and their contribution to supporting wider objectives such us reducing poverty, increasing employment opportunities, reducing inequalities etc. will be lost. The relationships that have been established have resulted in the presence and engagement of partners in events and activities such as welfare reform events, health and wellbeing activities, with the associated benefits for residents. In terms of the implications, it does not seem sensible to change any arrangements with partners for such a short period. It would be more beneficial to work with the partners to establish what future arrangements are most appropriate and to plan their implementation.

20



No reduction on the fee for government agencies or for private organisations.


21



A 50% discount for charities, KCC and LA commissioned services.


22



Organisations irrespective of their charitable status that are currently delivering elements of the work program will pay the full fee if their presence in gateway is to provide a government funded programme or service.


23



The sliding scale reduction on the fee, based on number of days occupancy.


24


Q4. Please tell us why you ‘disagree’ with there being ‘no reduction on the fee for government agencies or for private organisations.’

Responses; Some agencies will not be able to deliver their service if fees are payable.

Q4. Please tell us why you ‘disagree’ with there being ‘a 50% discount for charities, KCC and LA commissioned services.’

Overarching themes;

Organisations’ affordability to continue to operate from a Gateway if a service management fee is implemented;

Potential withdrawal of services from Gateways; Customer impact on accessing services; Increased cost to KCC and LA to provide services.

Responses; There should be no fee imposed for these groups; As a charity we deliver a much needed service to the public, any payment or charge for ‘space’ will

mean we will have to withdraw from Gateway; Even at a 50% discount would have to consider whether it was viable to have a member of staff at a

Gateway; Charities cannot afford to pay to provide their free, charitable services in Gateways, and will withdraw

from Gateways if charges are imposed. Empty Gateways are likely to attract widespread public criticism;

This will mean that those charities that depend on public donations or those who have to raise their own funding will have to either withdraw from providing this service or will have to raise more money. This also means that whatever services the charities were providing will have to be provided by the local authorities which defeats the object of trying to save money. The LA will have more work on its shoulder and this will eventually have an effect on the workforce morale. Due to the cuts, employees are already being double or triple hatted and burdening them with more work will be rather negative. Charities are actually helping the council by providing services that would otherwise have to be carried out by their staff. Having charities there also builds partnership, cooperation and better understanding among all the groups that are providing free service to those in welfare need.

Q4. Please tell us why you ‘disagree’ with there being ‘Organisations irrespective of

Overarching themes; No fees imposed for these groups; Withdrawal of services from Gateway;

25


their charitable status that are currently delivering elements of the work program will pay the full fee if their presence in gateway is to provide a government funded programme or service.’

Negative impact on customers accessing services; Increase cost to KCC & LA.

Responses; If fulfilling the government’s work programme the fee should be waived; Budget restraints and possible further cuts in budget; I disagree because these organisations like ourselves provide a much needed service in the

community and run on very tight margins. If we are spreading all our money on management fees there is less money left to develop the service.

Whilst it may appear reasonable to charge a full fee for government agencies or private organisations and those delivering the Work Programme, it is more important to understand the outcomes the service provided is trying to achieve and whether these make a direct contribution to the priorities and objectives of the council. For example, it may be more appropriate to require a formal referral process from other council services instead of charging a full fee, which may deliver significantly greater benefits than a simple charge. This approach could be applied to employability services for people with learning disabilities or care leavers which would result in improved outcomes for the individuals and reduced costs for the council’s services.

If charities are charged a full fee they will be able to deliver less services - if they are already locked in commissioned services this will not include an element for rent.

If they are fully funded then the cost of having a presence in a Gateway should have been factored into the government funded programme.

Q4. Please tell us why you ‘disagree’ with there being ‘a sliding scale reduction on the fee, based on number of days occupancy.’

Overarching themes; Withdrawal of services from Gateway; Difficult and costly to administrate.

Responses; As a charity we deliver a much needs service to the public, any payment or charge for ‘space’ will

mean we will have to withdraw from Gateway; From an operational perspective having a sliding scale would be more difficult and costly to

administer and invoice, particularly if Partners increase or decrease the number of days they are in the Gateway.

Q5. Are there any other options that you would like to be

Overarching themes; Free use for charities based in Kent or based on annual income;

26


considered? One option is to build into the commissioning agreement for services commissioned through KCC or the Local Authority a ‘term of agreement’ that Gateway buildings have to be listed as one of the locations from which they will deliver their services.


Responses; Free use by Charities that are able to offer support and assistance for independent living. Free use

on set days for existing members of the Borough Financial Capability Partnership to help residents get the best advice and support during difficult times and attempt to reduce repossessions, bankruptcy and insolvency- to take appropriate steps to improve their debt, personal wellbeing and the need to rely on food banks. This would include private business e.g. utility companies, Barclays etc. and local charities;

Exempting CAB from any charges; As a charity we deliver a much needed service to the public, any payment or charge for ‘space’ will

mean we will have to withdraw from Gateway; Charities should not be charged for room use; No charges at all to local registered charities, 50% discount is not acceptable. National charities, or

those not based in Kent should pay; Charge, if it has to be implemented, must be as minimum as possible to give better opportunities for

charities to continue to provide their free yet valuable service to those in need; Costing could be based on the annual income of any one charity. If under 250,000 should go free; Government funded programmes are provided with budgetary elements to enable them to rent space

to deliver the programmes, therefore they should be charged the full amount. Private organisations should be charged the full fee as they are not working within the remit of the public/third sector. KCC and LA commissioned services should be entitled to a 50% discount to the standard rate to ensure that they are able to provide services in the most needed locations at very little cost. Services who are commissioned through KCC or the Local Authority as part of the commissioning agreement for funding an option would be for a term of agreement that Gateway buildings have to be listed as one of the locations from which they will deliver their services, this can just be in the form of a drop-in but Gateways should be utilised as additional locations where available through the commissioning process;

KCC funded services should be able to use space within the Gateway with a possible central recharge;

Clear consideration should be given to both the social worth of the service being provided and the provider's ability to pay. It would be disingenuous to impose fees that any given provider might find sufficiently onerous to lead them to withdraw their services - leading to reduced access to support for

27


service users, and thus potentially exacerbating problems that ultimately incur a greater cost to KCC; Reviewing the current costs to provide the Gateway Services is likely to identifying significantly

greater savings, for example by delegating service provision to the districts, or sharing/streamlining the management of the service. For the Maidstone Gateway specifically, no changes should be made to the existing arrangements, given the short term nature of the remaining term to October 2016;

Clearly money needs to be found to pay for space but I feel alternatives should be investigated first.

Q6. Do you have any other Responses on the proposed amendments to the Gateway Service Management Fee?

Overarching themes; Organisations’ affordability to continue to operate from a Gateway if a service management fee is

implemented; Potential withdrawal of services from Gateways; Diluting of the Gateway service offer; Administration of the service management scheme.

Responses; Under the current climate, this generally seems like a fair proposal but I would not want to scare

away 3rd parties that have the ability to help residents remain safe and independent as there could be hidden costs to the LA;

Hi Kent would have to withdraw from all Kent Gateways if we become liable to pay fess for using them;

Under no circumstance whatsoever will hard pressed volunteer staff continue to work at Ashford Gateway if the authorities there have the temerity to charge us;

Our Chief Executive has commented that one of the Leader working groups has just been looking at welfare reform and those living on the edge and CAB were seen as being very important in this context. As such there needs to be further discussion on exempting them from all charges;

Charities should be given special consideration for the work they do, as they not only help those in need but also the local council;

We understand the need to charge at this current time, however, commissioned budgets will be reduced next year and this will now be an added cost pressure for the Health Trainer Service and the Stop Smoking Service. This could affect whether we remain within the Gateway buildings which would be a huge disadvantage to both the people that access the services and for the developed partnership relationships formed within the Gateway setting. Both the Health Trainers and the Stop Smoking Service want to provide their work in a setting that enables them to access the people that require both these services the most and make a positive impact to their lives and leading healthier lives. This will help with reducing health inequalities. Introducing a payment scheme for these

28


services could create a barrier to reaching the right people. The Health Trainers are measured on meeting people from quintiles 1,2 and 3 and working from a Gateway enables this to happen and with the Stop Smoking Service we know that smoking prevalence is higher in areas of highest deprivation

Rather than heading straight towards extending/increasing the charging regime, other options should be explored first. That could include commercial rental of space, developing retail services, etc. CAB in Swale has dealt with over 200 clients since we began offering a service at Sheppey Gateway. These clients would lose access to our support if we were to withdraw as a consequence of incurring a charge. If other agencies are discouraged from providing their services because of fees, there is the significant possibility that the Gateway will exist in name only. The fewer services available, the less reason people have to cross the threshold. Increasing the charging burden on front-line service providers who support the community undermines the raison d'etre of combining them in a single, accessible location.

Gateways will not have a complete complement of organisations if they are charged out of being able to be there;

In summary, we do not wish to see the Gateway offering diluted by some organisations being unable to pay a modest fee for their presence at Gateway. Discretion is therefore key to any charging structure. It is also unreasonable for one of the key stakeholders (KCC or the respective District) to share an unreasonable burden of subsidy, or for either of the key stakeholders to seek to pass costs of subsidy onto other key partners at the risk of diluting the Gateway offering.

If changes are implemented, it will be critical to minimise the burden of invoicing on individual partner organisations and each district. Streamlining the process to limit the number of invoices to one per organisation would address that in part;

I wonder if the administration of money collection will be more costly than providing the free services We would have to consider finding alternative venues if the cost was increased;

The proposed changes seem fair and reasonable in the current financial climate.

Q7. We have completed an Equality Impact Assessment to see if the revision to the current Gateway Service Management Fee could affect anyone unfairly. We welcome your views on the assumptions we have made and

Responses; Voluntary organisations who provide a services may be unable to afford the fees No responses - looks comprehensive The EIA seems comprehensive and assumptions reasonable

29


the conclusions we have drawn.

Q8. Please provide us with any data (quantitative and/or qualitative) you are happy to share on customers with protected characteristics, who are accessing your services via Gateway.

Swale CAB provided customer profiling.

30


7 POST CONSULTATION

The proposed Gateway Service Management Fee has been designed working with the Local

Authority Gateway Managers and Gateway consultees to enable KCC Gateway to achieve the

savings target identified without impacting on frontline services.

The proposal reflects the Customer Service Policy themes by ensuring that there is consistency

across the Gateway network in the implementation of the service management fee, along with

targeting KCC commissioners to ensure that VCS organisations are required as part of the KCC

commission agreement to deliver face to face services via Gateway.

Do you currently pay the Gateway Service Management Fee?


79% responded ‘no’

Are you affected by the changes proposed to the Gateway Service Management Fee?

84% responded ‘yes’. 16% of the responses were from organisations that would see no

change to their current service management fee.


No reduction on the fee for government agencies or for private organisations; 39% responded ‘strongly agree’

33% responded ‘agree’

A 50% discount for charities, KCC and LA commissioned services; 32% responded ‘strongly agree’


Organisations irrespective of their charitable status that are currently delivering elements of the Work Programme will pay the full fee if their presence in Gateway is to provide a government funded programme or service;

31


33% responded ‘strongly agree’


The sliding scale reduction on the fee, based on number of days occupancy; 26% responded ‘strongly agree’


Five organisations have stated that they do not agree with the proposal as they could not afford to

contribute to a service management fee so would potentially have to withdraw from Gateway.

The overarching themes raised by the consultees that responded are;

Organisations’ affordability to continue to operate from a Gateway if a service management

fee is implemented;


Customer impact on accessing services;

Reduced partner contribution to supporting wider social outcomes;

Increased cost to KCC and LA to provide services;

Difficult and costly to administer the Gateway service management fee scheme;

Free use for charities based in Kent or based on annual income;

Build into the commissioning agreement for services commissioned through KCC or the LA a

‘term of agreement’ that Gateway buildings have to be listed as one of the locations from

which they will deliver their services;


Following the consultation, recommendations were presented to the Director and Head of Service -

KCC Customer Relationship on 5th February 2015 for consideration which took into account the

feedback obtained from the consultation and the EqIA.

The majority of organisations that do not currently pay a Gateway service management advised that

they will withdraw from Gateway as they are not in a financial position to contribute. This would

create an unknown customer impact to a wide cross section of customers who currently access

Gateway services and could potentially mean that vulnerable customers are unable to continue to

easily access services. In addition the financial savings that the proposal aims to achieve would not

be realised.

32


As such the Director and Head of Service agreed that there will be no change to the current

Gateway service management fee arrangements.

The outcomes of the Gateway Service Management Fee consultation will feed into any future

service delivery models for KCC face to face services to provide parity for working in partnership

and collaboration of services based on the future Customer Service Policy, Supporting

Independence and Opportunity framework and Commissioning Framework.

33


microsoft word - public - post consultation report … · web viewmicrosoft word - public - post...

Documents