Issue - meetings
Allocation of Homelessness Prevention Funds
Meeting: 17/03/2016 - City Executive Board (became Cabinet on 13 May 2019) (Item 199)
199 Allocation of Homelessness Prevention Funds PDF 132 KB
The Head of Housing and Property has submitted a report which seeks approval of the allocation of the homelessness prevention funds, with the purpose of meeting the objectives of the Homelessness Strategy.
Recommendations: That the City Executive Board resolves to:
1. Approve the allocation of the Preventing Homelessness funds to commission homelessness services as outlined in paragraph 14 below;
2. Delegate to the Head of Housing and Property Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Housing, the discretion to administer any necessary changes to these allocations and allocate the balance of the Preventing Homelessness funds.
Additional documents:
- Appendix 1 Homeless Revenue Allocation 2015-2016 Allocated Amounts, item 199 PDF 95 KB
- Appendix 2 Risk Register Homeless Revenue Allocation, item 199 PDF 26 KB
Minutes:
The Head of Housing and Property submitted a report which sought approval of the allocation of the homelessness prevention funds, with the purpose of meeting the objectives of the Homelessness Strategy.
The Executive Board Member, Housing presented the report and confirmed the Council’s commitment to ending rough sleeping within the City by supporting homeless people and those threatened with homelessness into sustainable accommodation, as evidenced by the £1.2M budget provision.
In discussion the Board considered the following points:
· the particular problems facing people living in a “tent city” and the ways in which the Council could support them, for example, by relocating them to established campsites as an interim measure
· that the Council’s rough sleeping team do use existing links to ensure that rough sleepers and people in a “tent city” have access to medical services
· that there was a further group of people who needed support, the “hidden homeless” who although not sleeping on the street were living in vehicles etc
The City Executive Board resolved to:
1. Approve the allocation of the Preventing Homelessness funds to commission homelessness services as outlined in paragraph 14 of the report;
2. Delegate to the Head of Housing and Property Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Housing, the discretion to administer any necessary changes to these allocations and allocate the balance of the Preventing Homelessness funds.
Meeting: 09/03/2016 - Housing Panel (Panel of the Scrutiny Committee) (Item 41)
41 Allocation of Homelessness Prevention Funds PDF 129 KB
Background information |
The Housing Panel asked for the Allocation of Homelessness Prevention Funds to be included on the agenda for pre-decision scrutiny.
|
Why is it on the agenda? |
The City Executive Board will be asked to approve the Allocation of Homelessness Prevention Funds at its meeting on 17 March 2016. This is an opportunity for the Housing Panel to make recommendations to the City Executive Board.
|
Who has been invited to comment? |
Nerys Parry, Rough Sleeping and Single Homelessness Manager
|
Additional documents:
- Appendix 1 Homeless Revenue Allocation 2015-2016 Allocated Amounts, item 41 PDF 95 KB
- Appendix 2 Risk Register Homeless Revenue Allocation, item 41 PDF 26 KB
Minutes:
The Rough Sleeping and Single Homelessness Manager introduced the report and said that the City Council was maintaining a £1.3m budget for homelessness prevention but cuts to County Council budgets were presenting a major challenge.
The Panel questioned what would happen when the County cuts took affect at the end of the coming financial year. The Panel heard that funding is rarely allocated for over one year at a time and that officers would be taking stock and assessing what was business critical from April 2017 onwards but that there would be very significant changes to the provision of services and support in the city. Talks were taking place between the City Council and district and health partners on pooling resources but there would inevitably be difficult decisions about re-commissioning services.
In response to a question, the Panel heard that the Council would know more by summer 2016 and that there could be an opportunity for member involvement at that time.
The Panel questioned how many big Issue Sellers were being supported. The Panel heard that the Big Issues comprised two sister organisations, a sales arm which operated in most cities and a foundation that worked to support vendors and also operated in Oxford. Of approximately sixty vendors based in the city a cohort of about thirty individuals that had accommodation and wanted to move through the system were receiving specific support.
In conclusion the Panel expressed disappointment at the County Council cuts and agreed to request a further report to Scrutiny in summer 2016.