The Housing Strategy and Performance Manager introduced the report and advised that the Council’s Homelessness Strategy and Action Plan had been found to be fit for current purpose.  Of the 61 key milestones, 45 actions had been completed and were now embedded into day to day service delivery.  A further 11 would be completed within the lifetime of the strategy and 5 had been delayed.  No changes were recommended to the strategy or action plan at this stage but a further review would take place in June 2016 once the implications of new national policies and the Autumn Spending Review were better understood. 

The Panel were also advised that the City Council was in the process of completing the Gold Standard 10 local challenges.  Many other authorities had not yet started this process.  The first challenge had been awarded for corporate commitment to tackling homelessness and a second challenge would be submitted by officers the following day.  In response to a question, the Panel heard that this involved responding to questions and providing evidence to demonstrate that the Council delivered on its policies and strategies.

The Panel questioned what data the Council keeps on people who are not eligible for services, such as those who had refused an offer of housing.  The Housing Strategy and Performance Manager advised that the Council provides advice, information and signposting to assist customers and offered to provide to the Panel some details on the types of services being provided.

The Panel questioned how the Making Every Adult Matter (MEAM) pilot had gone and the Housing Strategy and Performance Manager offered to speak with colleagues and provide more information to the Panel.

In response to a question about the recommissioning of homelessness services with reduced funding, the Panel heard that this process was led by the County Council and was now in its final stages. There would be no hostel closures or loss of bed spaces in the city.  The main challenge to the homelessness pathway was a lack of move on accommodation.  This was caused by a lack of sustainable accommodation in the city that was available at Local Housing Allowance rates.

The Panel questioned where in the city people tend to present as homeless and whether many applications were received from people from neighbouring districts.  The Panel heard that there were handfuls of such cases and that it was often difficult to identify where responsibility for these individuals lies.  Not all local authorities make provision for non-statutory homelessness so services located in Oxford did have an attraction effect to some extent. 

The Panel noted that Age UK had been awarded funding to speed up hospital discharges for older people and asked which agencies the City Council was working with on homeless hospital discharge protocols. 

The Panel asked what support the City Council provided to credit unions and whether such provision was sustainable.  Officers offered to come back on this.

The Panel questioned the City Council’s approach to preventing begging.  The Panel heard that homeless people shouldn’t need to beg and that the City Council had an anti-begging campaign that encouraged people to support resources for homelessness rather than people who were begging.  This included business cards, leaflet and online information.  The Panel requested to see some of this campaign literature.

Resolved: The Panel would request the following:

-       A report following the next review of the homelessness strategy and action plan (expected in June 2016),

-       Data on the information and advice provided to customers to who the Council does not owe a duty to house,

-       Information about the MEAM pilot,

-       Information about improving homelessness discharge procedures,

-       Information on support provided to Credit Unions,

-       Anti-begging campaign literature.