Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
1.1 The Chair welcomed Members and Officers to the meeting. 1.2 There were no apologies received.
2.1 Councillor Evans declared an interest as Chair of a local hub and as a school governor, in light of the discussion on funding and referrals.
3.1 The minutes of the previous meeting held on 19 March 2026 were confirmed as an accurate record.
4.1 The TLS went through the action sheet, there were no outstanding actions, Members noted the Action Sheet.
5.1 The Chair introduced the item and Officers. Members then went into questioning. 5.2 In response to Members’ questions the officers provided the following answers: • The GMH&P explained that the EIP Hub had been established through a restructure and realignment of services across the Communities Directorate, bringing together staff from a range of service areas and professional backgrounds. He advised that the first few months had focused on developing the operating model, referral pathways, data collection arrangements and outcome measures. Whilst this initial period had been challenging, he considered that it had helped develop a resilient and collaborative team approach. • The GMH&P explained that the EIP model supported the Deal by promoting a different way of working, focused on what matters to individuals and on making better use of community and commissioned services. He said this had enabled the Council to identify gaps in provision more clearly and to shape support around local need rather than relying on single-service responses. • The GMH&P explained that the Hub had improved coordination and cohesion by reducing duplication, improving communication between services and enabling staff to take a more holistic view of need. The HoC&W added that the service had to balance the acute demand currently presenting with the longer-term aim of building earlier intervention and lower-level community provision. • The GMH&P said the Hub was now providing a clearer picture of unmet need, including examples such as transport barriers and gaps in community provision. In response to supplementary questions, he advised that this information was being fed into community capacity building and preventative commissioning arrangements, whilst the HoC&W commented that the Council also needed to use its own resources flexibly to underpin community delivery where appropriate. • The GMH&P advised that managing variation in support provision had been challenging, particularly where services were funded through different grant regimes and worked to different requirements. He said significant work had gone into aligning systems and processes and creating a common thread of information, and that confidence in the system was now much stronger than in the earlier months. The PHTL also commented on the progress that had been made in developing the operational processes. • The GMH&P explained that a significant amount of earlier intervention was already taking place informally within communities, although this was difficult to measure. In response to a supplementary question, he added that policy change alone would not resolve underlying causes of issues such as housing and homelessness risk, and that earlier support, education and expectation management remained important. • The PHTL advised that, to balance promotion of the Hub with avoiding inappropriate referrals, work was taking place with referring agencies to improve understanding of what the Hub should and should not receive. She said the emphasis was on helping professionals and partners signpost more confidently at the earliest opportunity. • The GMH&P explained that inappropriate referrals were being monitored and that some reflected misunderstanding of the Hub's role, whilst others highlighted wider gaps in provision. The PHTL added examples including referrals from health which would have been more appropriately dealt with elsewhere, together with referrals linked to neurodiversity and adult assessment needs. The HoC&W further commented that, alongside improving referral quality, there was also value in considering whether some referrals indicated unmet need which required a broader community or partner response. • The GMH&P reported that extensive communication had taken place with schools, health partners, registered social landlords and other agencies. The PHTL added that referral quality from schools had improved significantly since the autumn term, supported by regular meetings, feedback loops and data sharing. • The GMH&P acknowledged that developing a robust dataset had been a major challenge. He explained that the case management system had been refined over time to reduce duplication and improve consistency. In response to supplementary questions, he advised that further work was underway to automate reporting and develop dashboards, and the PHTL added that staff and partner feedback had also helped identify what data needed to be captured to evidence trends and emerging need. • The GMH&P explained that target timescales were generally set according to the nature of each service and historical practice, but that flexibility was built in for more complex cases. In response to a supplementary question, he added that improved oversight and more consistent use of the system had contributed to better performance against those timescales. • The GMH&P advised that the Council was not relying solely on numerical non-representation data and was also using service-user groups, commissioning reviews, case audits and follow-up checks to better understand the quality and sustainability of outcomes. • The GMH&P explained that the increase in the number of customers offered an appropriate community support offer reflected improvements in recording, stronger operational links and growing staff knowledge of available provision. The PHTL added that access to information on community support had also improved. In response to supplementary comment, the GMH&P said that the Hub's collective knowledge and co-location were continuing to strengthen the quality of signposting and support. • The PHTL advised that the increase in average time from front door enquiry to Hub referral had reflected a period of high referral volume, staffing pressures and waiting lists in some services. The HoC&W added that, where waiting lists existed, staff were also looking at what interim or lower-level support could be provided while people were waiting. • The GMH&P advised that the Hub was currently able to manage the volume of referrals, but that this depended on staffing levels and the complexity of cases. The PHTL added that staff wellbeing was being actively supported through reflective practice, supervision and trauma-informed approaches. In response to supplementary questions, the PHTL explained that caseloads varied considerably depending on the nature of referrals. The GMH&P then advised that the Hub was increasingly able to monitor patterns of demand and emerging themes, with both the PHTL and the HoC&W adding that the longer-term aim remained to strengthen earlier prevention and community access so that not all needs escalated to the Hub. • The GMH&P acknowledged the risk that pressure could be displaced onto community groups and advised that officers were maintaining regular dialogue with community organisations to understand pressure points, support growth where possible and plan proactively. The HoC&W added that proactive planning with communities was as important as responding once pressure had already arisen. In response to a supplementary question, The GMH&P confirmed that there was also engagement with wider evidence and research to support this work. • The GMH&P accepted that reliance on volunteers and short-term funding remained a significant risk. He said ongoing work with community partners would be important in supporting volunteering, promoting collaborative working between groups and maximising access to external funding. The HoC&W added that partnership working with TVA would be especially important in this regard. • The GMH&P described increasingly complex presentations involving overlapping issues such as mental health, finance, housing and family circumstances, and explained that the EIP model enabled coordinated multi-agency packages of support. The PHTL added examples from family cases where multiple issues were presenting simultaneously and required careful sequencing of support. • The GMH&P advised that it was too early to quantify savings in other statutory services, although there were early signs that some lower-level demand was being diverted into community support rather than commissioned services. He emphasised that EIP should be viewed as a longer-term preventative model rather than a short-term savings exercise. • The GMH&P explained that officers wanted outcome and performance measures to reflect not only activity levels but also the quality and impact of support. He said this was being built into commissioning, grant monitoring and wider review work so that value for money could be assessed more meaningfully. • The GMH&P advised that the referral route remained primarily professional at this stage, although work was beginning to widen access for community groups and to consider how Members and others could be better supported through referral awareness. He confirmed that further milestones and improved reporting arrangements would be developed as the model matured. • The GMH&P said the most important learning had been the value of collaborative working and shared ownership across services and partners. In reflecting on what he would change, he commented that a more phased implementation with stronger foundations in place from the outset may have reduced some of the early instability, although he remained confident that the service now had firmer foundations. 5.3 Officers & the EM’s then left the meeting and Members and the TLS and TD&MSO remained.
6.1 The date of the next meeting was scheduled for the 8th July 2026 6.2 The meeting ended at 12.15pm
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.