Decisions

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST MADE FOR THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet Member for Tackling Inequality and Resident Services:

1.    Noted the annual Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF) allocation from the Government of £5,932,161 for the three-year period from 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2029.

2.    Noted the expenditure of £2,470,000 authorised through the decision made on 24 March 2026.

3.    Approved the extension of free school meal holiday vouchers until September 2026 at an estimated additional cost of £966,000, followed by a more targeted approach to holiday payments for households experiencing financial hardship, to be determined later in the year in accordance with paragraph 3.12.

4.    Approved estimated expenditure of £1,742,338 for the expansion of the Financial Support Team, as detailed in the report.

5.    Approved estimated expenditure of £200,432 to increase the number of crisis fund decision-makers by two Benefits Officers for a period of two years.

6.    Approved estimated one-off expenditure of £30,000 for the development of a streamlined online application form integrating multiple crisis fund applications and a benefits calculator.

7.    Approved estimated expenditure of £220,221 to fund a strategic community coordination role supporting the design, co-production and delivery of the borough's approach to tackling poverty.

8.    Approved estimated expenditure of £206,357 for the administration of the scheme, including staff resources for Housing Payments and the year two cost of the Low-Income Family Tracker.

9.    Noted that all costs were estimates based on current data and forecasts and could vary according to actual demand and other relevant factors.

10. Approved delegated authority to the Corporate Director for Environment and Resident Experience to manage the budget in accordance with the principles and criteria set out in the Policy and the CRF outcome measures.

11. Agreed that the Policy in Appendix A would be updated to reflect the recommendations approved through the decision.

12. Delegated authority for the allocation of the remaining year one CRF funding, estimated at £1,575,332, to the Corporate Director for Environment and Resident Experience, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Tackling Inequality and Resident Services. This also included authority to allocate year two CRF funding to cover the Easter school holiday period, if required.

13. Noted the ongoing development of an Anti-Poverty Strategy to inform future updates to the Policy.

Reasons for the decision

Haringey Council remained committed to supporting residents experiencing financial hardship. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) provided funding to local authorities through the CRF, recognising that councils were well placed to allocate resources in response to local needs.

The CRF guidance allowed local authorities to determine how funding was allocated within the framework of the programme's objectives. The DWP also expected authorities to invest in preventative measures as well as direct crisis support.

The decision brought the year one CRF allocation to £4,356,829, the year two allocation to £1,088,335 and the year three allocation to £385,184. Funding was targeted at residents with the greatest identified need and was consistent with the aims of the scheme.

External modelling indicated that a significant proportion of benefits available to eligible residents in Haringey remained unclaimed, with an estimated value of £160 million. While the report authorised expenditure for only part of the available grant funding, it supported the development of services intended to help residents access their entitlement and navigate the benefits system. Further updates to the Policy were anticipated over the funding period to reflect the council's Anti-Poverty Strategy, emerging evidence and changing local needs.

The Policy extended support to September 2026 for low-income households with children eligible for free school meals through the provision of school holiday vouchers. This represented the maximum period for universal provision allowed under DWP guidance. The council was also reviewing arrangements for holiday support from the 2026/27 academic year onwards, with the intention of introducing a more targeted approach focused on households at risk of financial hardship while supporting longer-term financial resilience.

The redesign and expansion of the Council's Financial Support Team were intended to increase outreach activity and community-based support. Extended operating hours for the financial support helpline were also expected to improve accessibility for residents.

Additional funding was allocated to increase the number of officers making crisis support decisions, enabling more comprehensive assessments and associated support to be provided.

Approval was also sought to improve the Council's digital application process, enabling residents to apply for multiple crisis funds through a single online portal and receive information about potential benefit entitlement.

Alternative options considered

Consideration was given to delaying implementation until a full year one Policy had been developed. This option was not pursued because it would have delayed financial support and reduced the intended impact of the CRF.

Consideration was also given to committing the entire allocation at this stage. This option was not pursued because the council's Anti-Poverty Strategy was still being developed and was expected to inform future allocation of the remaining funding.

Other options considered included:

• Ending all school holiday support after September 2026.
• Implementing a smaller expansion of the teams responsible for crisis fund decisions and one-to-one financial support.
  
  

These options were not pursued because they were assessed as insufficient to meet the level of financial support need identified within the borough.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST MADE FOR THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Greed to re?establish the Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee and noted the terms of reference for the advisory sub?committee, as set out in Appendix A.

2.    Noted the Community Safety Partnership terms of reference, as set out in Appendix B.

3.    Noted that the appointment of Members to the Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee and the Community Safety Partnership would be agreed by the Leader of the Council as a non?key decision.

Reasons for decision

The establishment of a Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee provided oversight of councillors’ statutory role as corporate parents and supported the Council in meeting its duties to children in care and care leavers.

Appointments from Cabinet to the Community Safety Partnership were required to meet statutory obligations and to ensure appropriate strategic oversight and accountability for community safety matters.

Alternative options considered

The option of discontinuing the Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee was considered. This would have removed a formal forum for members and officers to meet regularly to consider the wellbeing of children in care and to monitor the Council’s corporate parenting responsibilities. The Committee was distinct from the Children and Young People’s Scrutiny Panel, as it focused specifically on looked?after children and care leavers and reported directly to Cabinet.

The Community Safety Partnership was a statutory partnership body, and therefore the option of not appointing Cabinet Members to the Partnership was not available.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST MADE FOR THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Approved, pursuant to Contract Standing Orders (CSO) 2.01(b), the commencement of a procurement process for the provision of HRS SACNP, as set out in Exempt Appendix 1, in accordance with the Council’s Contract Standing Orders and procurement legislation.

2.    Approved a funding envelope of up to £8,373,666 for the initial contract term of four years, inclusive of a 4% inflationary increase. It was noted that the maximum aggregate value of the contracts could be up to £24,420,706 if all extension periods were exercised, with any extension beyond the initial term subject to separate approval in line with the Council’s governance and financial regulations.

3.    Approved that the service lots described in Exempt Appendix 1 formed the scope of the procurement, with contract durations and commencement dates as set out in the report.

4.    Approved the development of a Supported Exempt Accommodation (SEA) and Social Enterprise model, with the Council working in partnership with supported housing providers and the voluntary and community sector to explore opportunities to deliver lower?intensity, accommodation?based support.

Reasons for decision

There was an ongoing and evidenced need for specialist housing?related support for single adults with multiple and intersecting needs, as outlined elsewhere in the report. Existing provision played an important role in preventing homelessness, supporting safe discharge from hospital and other institutions, and enabling residents to stabilise and sustain independent living. Approval to commence procurement was therefore required to ensure continuity of services and sufficient capacity to meet current and emerging need.

The procurement of these services supported the Council in meeting its statutory duties. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 set out statutory prevention duties, requiring earlier intervention and partnership working across public authorities to prevent homelessness. Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 placed a joint duty on the Council and health bodies to provide appropriate aftercare for individuals discharged from mental health detention, supporting complex needs and reducing the risk of avoidable readmissions.

Commissioning sufficient supported accommodation enabled the Council to meet its statutory responsibilities in a planned and preventative way, reducing reliance on higher?cost Adult Social Care and Temporary Accommodation. Evidence indicated that this represented a more cost?effective approach, with Haringey’s pricing at the lower end of regional benchmarks. Approval of the proposed funding envelope therefore supported statutory delivery while achieving value for money.

A long?term block contract model supported service stability and continuity. Longer contract durations enabled providers to take a more strategic approach to delivery, invest in workforce development, and embed consistent practice. This approach also supported stronger relationships between residents and staff. Approval of the proposed service lots and contract structure enabled delivery of a consistent and cost?effective supported accommodation pathway.

The proposed transition of lower?level provision to a SEA and Social Enterprise model supported the development of a diverse and locally responsive offer, including specialist provision for groups requiring culturally competent support. The Council worked with partners to ensure that this provision was maintained and strengthened. The introduction of this model was not intended to reduce overall capacity but to maintain, and where possible expand, lower?support accommodation while improving outcomes and value for money.

The proposals aligned with the Council’s Corporate Delivery Plan 2024–26, particularly the priorities relating to adults, health and welfare and homes for the future, supporting wellbeing, reducing inequalities and promoting safe and secure housing through partnership working.

Alternative options considered

Extending existing contracts was not considered viable, as one provider had formally notified the Council of its intention to withdraw from care and support services, with an agreed early termination date. The contract could not be extended beyond this point, and proceeding without procurement would have risked service disruption and displacement of residents.

Temporarily transferring contracts to alternative providers was considered but discounted due to operational and continuity risks. Short?term contracts were unlikely to attract sufficient market interest and would have increased the risk of service disruption, safeguarding concerns and inconsistent quality, while still requiring a full re?tender within a short timeframe.

Recommissioning all existing services without transitioning lower?level provision to the SEA model was also considered. While this would have maintained continuity, it was not regarded as the most effective or sustainable option, as it limited the Council’s ability to prioritise higher?intensity support and develop a more flexible and outcomes?focused approach.

Not recommissioning the higher?support services was rejected due to the statutory, operational and financial risks involved. This option would have increased the risk of homelessness among vulnerable residents, placing additional pressure on Temporary Accommodation and Adult Social Care and undermining the Council’s statutory duties.

Delivering the services in?house was not considered viable due to limited Council property assets and the scale of investment and specialist capacity required. While smaller services may be suitable for in?house delivery in some circumstances, this was not considered a practical or cost?effective model for the wider pathway.