Agenda item

To receive a presentation from strategic partners, setting out the achievements, challenges and successes of the partnership and future opportunities.

Ms E Hanson, Head of Commissioning, Mr A Hardie, Executive Director of Enterprise and Operations, Shaw Trust, Mr M Barrett, Chief Executive Officer, Porchlight, and Ms J Hargreaves, Head of Community and Preventative Services, were in attendance for this item.

1.            Ms Hanson introduced a series of slides (included in the agenda pack) which set out the aims, key threads and achievements of the Live Well Kent Partnership.  Mr Barrett then introduced slides outlining the work of Porchlight and Mr Hardie introduced slides outlining the same for the Shaw Trust. They emphasised the person-centred approach of the Live Well Kent Partnership, with information being presented in as simple a way as possible, to make it user-friendly, and gave examples of the programme’s successes around the county and opportunities for future working. Ms Hanson, Mr Hardie and Mr Barrett then responded to comments and questions from the committee, including the following:-

a)    asked how volunteers were recruited to work in the County Council‘s partner organisations, Mr Hardie explained that the Shaw Trust was always seeking volunteers and put much thought in to how to train them to the required standard and how their skills could be best used. Volunteers were required to have a minimum level 1 or 2 qualification to work with people with mental health needs.  The aim was for Live Well Kent to recruit 50 such volunteers. Mr Barrett added that, although volunteers were a vital part of its work, Porchlight did not rely solely on them but also had paid staff.  He agreed with Mr Hardie about the importance of thorough training of staff and volunteers to make sure they could give best support in an environment where they would be safe. Mr Hardie reassured the committee that volunteers were in addition to paid staff and that no volunteer would take a job from a paid member of staff;

b)    concern was expressed that the £4m budget allocation to Live Well Kent was not sufficient to cover its work.  Ms Hanson said that the move from government grant funding to contracting had had an impact on the way in which voluntary organisations worked but emphasised that they retained their vitally important role in the social care market;

c)    asked how many people Live Well Kent might work with at any one time, Mr Barrett explained that there could be between 1,000 and 1,200 people eligible for support at any one time. Recent government reforms of the welfare system and the increase in the number of people sleeping rough had had an impact on the number of people with mental health needs and exacerbated the anxiety levels of those coping with homelessness;

d)    Ms Hargreaves explained that Live Well Kent sought to work more closely with GPs around referrals and wanted to identify if those who referred themselves had done so on the recommendation of their GP. Live Well Kent sought to support more non-clinical interventions and was looking into the possibility of holding drop-in clinics at GPs’ surgeries.  Ms Southern added that money from clinical commissioning groups was invested in the service and the aim was to establish a fully-integrated service to be able to access joint health and social care funding;

e)    asked if Live Well Kent would signpost people to housing providers, Mr Barrett explained that, if a person met the criteria for a priority need category, they would either be referred on to district housing providers or supported by Porchlight to rent privately;

f)     asked about waiting lists and the timescale for receiving a response to referral, Ms Hargreaves explained that, in response to a telephone or email referral, Live Well Kent aimed to make contact within two days and start to deliver a service within five days. There was a waiting list for some services, for example, community inclusion, which indicated the level of demand;

g)    asked if a therapist was on hand to help people with complex mental health issues,  Ms Hargreaves explained that Live Well Kent’s service was a general, universal service rather than an acute service and hence was not designed to cater for people with complex mental health needs;

h)   asked how the service would reach people in the large rural areas of the county, Mr Hardie explained that workers were allocated to a geographical area to work in both urban and rural areas.  To make contact face-to-face with service users was important. Ms Hanson added that local workers needed to understand and be familiar with communities and the activities available there in order to best help someone to find support within their community rather than to have to travel outside it.  The importance of creative arts and cultural activities to personal wellbeing and identity was emphasised; and

i)     concern was expressed that many people with mental health needs may not  know that they were entitled to a reduction in Council Tax, and that some district councils did not seem to be aware of this and the need to spread this information.  Mr Barrett explained that advising on this was part of Porchlight’s service. Entitlement would depend on individuals’ circumstances, and the Department of Work and Pensions would need to refer to and interpret the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to calculate a person’s eligibility.

2.            RESOLVED that the information set out in the presentation and given in response to comments and questions be noted, with thanks, and a further update be made to a future meeting of the committee, including examples and case studies of frontline service delivery.