Decision details

To make a decision about accepting the offer of a Life Chances Fund contribution towards outcome payments for an Adults with Complex Needs Social Impact Bond.

That the Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care:

(a)  notes that, on 20th June 2018, Sheffield City Council accepted ‘in principle’ grant funding in respect of Life Chances Funding (LCF), in the sum of £19.3m;

(b)  approves acceptance of the Life Chances Fund grant contribution of £1.462m towards the Adults with Complex Needs Project, as set out in the report;

(c)  gives authority for SCC to enter into any additional grant agreement where required in respect of the Adults with Complex Needs Project; and

(d)  where no existing authority exists, delegates authority to the Executive Director of People Services, in consultation with the Director of Finance and Commercial Services, to take such steps necessary to meet the aims and objectives of the report.

The Life Chances Fund offer to the Adults with Complex Needs project constitutes up to £1.462m extra resources for improving outcomes for a very vulnerable group of people in Sheffield. The service should also reduce unplanned demand for support services in the city, relieving pressure on services and potentially delivering savings.

The prospect of Life Chances Fund funding has brought together a partnership around the project and driven partner commitments of funding and collaboration. Without it, the service would not be commissioned at this point and the commitments to deliver such a service may be lost.

Earlier in the development process, commissioning these services through ‘traditional’ models was considered, but was not thought to be possible due to pressures on commissioning budgets.

We could also decide to continue with the project on a social investment basis but decline the funding from the Life Chances Fund. However, this is not recommended. The terms on which the contribution is offered are considered to be acceptable and the Life Chances Fund contribution will mean that local public services’ contributions will stretch further.

Given the amount of development work that has already taken place, deciding not to accept the offer of LCF funding would mean that the Adults with Complex Needs service would not be commissioned at this point. It is probable that further attempts would be made to launch an alternative, but foregoing the 25% contribution from LCF would of course mean that the service budget would be lower. It would also be difficult to re-orientate the existing partnership around a new proposal.