Agenda and draft minutes

People Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Thursday, 4 June 2026 10.00 am

Venue: Room 2&3 - County Hall, New Road, Oxford OX1 1ND. View directions

Contact: Scrutiny Team  Email:  scrutiny@oxfordshire.gov.uk

Link: video link https://www.youtube.com/@OxfordshirePublicMeetings

Items
No. Item

18/26

Apologies for Absence and Temporary Appointments

To receive any apologies for absence and temporary appointments.

 

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Cllr Overton, substituted by Cllr Batstone, and Cllr Barlow.

19/26

Declaration of Interests

See guidance note on the back page.

Minutes:

There were none.

20/26

Minutes pdf icon PDF 266 KB

The Committee is recommended to APPROVE the minutes of the meetings held on 19 March 2026, and 12 May 2026, and to receive information arising from them.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meetings held on 19 March 2026, and 12 May 2026 were AGREED as a true and accurate record.

 

21/26

Petitions and Public Address

Members of the public who wish to speak on an item on the agenda at this meeting, or present a petition, can attend the meeting in person or ‘virtually’ through an online connection.

 

Requests to speak must be submitted no later than 9am three working days before the meeting, i.e. Monday, 01 June 2026.

 

Requests should be submitted to the Scrutiny Officer at scrutiny@oxfordshire.gov.uk.

 

If you are speaking ‘virtually’, you may submit a written statement of your presentation to ensure that if the technology fails, then your views can still be taken into account. A written copy of your statement can be provided no later than 9am on the day of the meeting. Written submissions should be no longer than 1 A4 sheet.

 

Minutes:

There were none.

22/26

Community Capacity Grants Programme pdf icon PDF 339 KB

Cllr Rebekah Fletcher, Cabinet member for Adults, Karen Fuller, Director of Adult Social Care, and Izzie Rockingham, Head of Joint Commissioning – Age Well, have been invited to present a report on the Community Capacity Grants Programme.

 

The Committee has also invited Laura Price, CEO of Oxfordshire Community & Voluntary Action; Zoe Sprigings, CEO of Oxfordshire Community Foundation; and Emily Lewis-Edwards, Joint CEO of Community First Oxfordshire, to support its work and respond to members’ questions.

 

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

Minutes:

Cllr Rebekah Fletcher, Cabinet Member for Adults, Victoria Baran, Deputy Director of Adult Social Care, and Isabel Rockingham, Head of Joint Commissioning – Age Well, were invited to present a report on the Community Capacity Grants Programme.

 

Laura Price, CEO of Oxfordshire Community & Voluntary Action, Zoe Springs, CEO of Oxfordshire Community Foundation, and, Emily Lewis-Edwards, Joint CEO of Community First Oxfordshire, were invited to support the Committee.

 

The Cabinet Member introduced the report by outlining the programme’s role in supporting the Council’s preventative agenda, helping residents to remain independent and connected within their communities. Officers explained that the programme had operated since 2022, funding voluntary and community organisations through the Connected Communities Fund and larger grants administered by established sector partners. More than 275 projects had been supported, reaching over 30,000 residents, with an annual value of around £900,000.

 

In discussion, Members first examined the delivery model and asked why funding was routed through intermediary organisations rather than awarded directly. Officers explained that partner bodies brought established local relationships, knowledge of community need, and the capacity to run accessible application processes, particularly for smaller organisations. Representatives of those partners added that they provided practical support to applicants, including help to shape bids and understand criteria, which had broadened participation and improved the quality of submissions.

 

Members then considered demand for the programme, noting that it was consistently oversubscribed. Officers confirmed that demand substantially exceeded available funding and that many unsuccessful applications were nevertheless strong. They explained that decisions were based on alignment with preventative outcomes, value for money, and reach into priority communities.

 

The Committee also asked whether the programme was reaching rural areas and underserved groups effectively. Officers said targeted engagement was undertaken to encourage applications from underrepresented areas and communities, and that the funding model allowed flexibility to respond to local circumstances. Members nevertheless emphasised the need for continued monitoring to ensure equitable distribution.

 

Members explored how impact was measured and whether stronger evidence could be developed to demonstrate wider preventative benefits, including reduced demand on statutory services. Officers explained that monitoring currently combined quantitative data with qualitative evidence such as case studies and user feedback. They acknowledged that demonstrating longer-term preventative impact remained challenging, noting that more detailed evaluation would require additional resource and could place a disproportionate burden on smaller organisations. Officers also highlighted that many funded interventions were based on established evidence and confirmed that work was underway to strengthen evaluation arrangements in a proportionate manner.

 

Members welcomed the support available to smaller organisations, including one-to-one advice and feedback for unsuccessful applicants, but queried whether this created capacity pressures for delivery partners. Officers and partner representatives acknowledged that the approach was resource-intensive but said it was important to maintain accessibility and a diverse provider base.

 

The Committee also discussed the programme’s sustainability in the context of wider financial pressures. Officers advised that future funding at current levels could not be guaranteed and would depend on budget decisions. Members raised concern that uncertainty could affect both  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22/26

23/26

Update on the Council's Shared Lives Service pdf icon PDF 202 KB

Cllr Rebekah Fletcher, Cabinet Member for Adults, Karen Fuller, Director of Adult Social Services, Sam Harper, Head of Service, Sally Ellis, Shared Lives Team manager, and Nikki Oleksiw, Shared Lives Social Worker, have been invited to present a report on an Update on the Council’s Shared Lives Service.

 

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

Minutes:

Cllr Rebekah Fletcher, Cabinet Member for Adults, Sam Harper, Head of Service, Sally Ellis, Shared Lives Team manager, Nikki Oleksiw, Shared Lives Social Worker, Jane Whitaker, Shared Lives Carer, and Sarah Hopwood, Shared Lives Scheme “Expert by Experience”, presented the update on the Council’s Shared Lives Service.

 

The Cabinet Member introduced the report by outlining Shared Lives as a community-based model of care in which individuals are supported to live within family environments with approved carers, rather than in more traditional residential settings. Officers advised that the service currently supported over 100 individuals, was regulated by the Care Quality Commission with a “Good” rating and delivered both improved personal outcomes and lower costs in many cases when compared with residential care. The presentation also highlighted the service’s role in supporting people with learning disabilities, mental health needs, and care leavers transitioning to adulthood, alongside ongoing work to expand capacity.

 

Members began by asking how consistently Shared Lives was considered through assessment and care planning. Officers said it formed part of standard care planning and was considered at an early stage where appropriate, but stressed that suitability depended on individual need, preference, compatibility with carers, and safeguarding considerations. Members asked whether earlier identification of suitable candidates could increase uptake, and officers agreed that further awareness among practitioners remained important.

 

The Committee then explored the scale of the service and the constraints on growth. Officers advised that recruitment of carers remained the principal constraint and that the approval process had to be robust to ensure quality and safety. This involved assessment, training, and careful matching, which could take several months. Members asked whether the Council had clear growth ambitions and whether progress was sufficient. Officers said there was a clear ambition to expand the service, but that growth had to be managed carefully to maintain quality and appropriate matches.

 

Members raised questions about recruitment and public awareness, noting that the model was not widely understood. Officers acknowledged this and said that successful recruitment was still often driven by word-of-mouth and informal networks. Members asked what more could be done to promote the scheme, including the role councillors might play locally. Officers welcomed Member support and said that clearer, more consistent messaging would help recruitment.

 

The Committee also discussed the uneven geographic distribution of carers across the county and the risk that people in some rural or less well-served areas might have more limited access to placements. Officers acknowledged this variation and advised that targeted recruitment activity was taking place in areas with lower provision, though this remained dependent on suitable individuals coming forward.

 

Members explored the financial and wider system benefits of the model, asking how Shared Lives compared with residential care. Officers confirmed, and was supported by the Expert by Experience, that placements were often significantly less expensive than residential care packages while also producing better personalised outcomes. They emphasised, however, that the service should not be seen solely as a cost-saving measure, as its main purpose was to provide a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23/26

24/26

Consultation on Proposed Changes to Adult Social Care Contributions Policy pdf icon PDF 241 KB

Cllr Rebekah Fletcher, Cabinet Member for Adults, Karen Fuller, Director of Adult Social Services, Victoria Baran, Deputy Director of Adult Social Care, and Level Chingalembe, Head of Social Care Finance Payment Management, have been invited to present a report on the Consultation on proposed changes to Adult Social Care Contributions Policy.

 

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Rebekah Fletcher, Cabinet Member for Adults, Victoria Baran, Deputy Director, and Level Chingalembe, Head of Social Care Finance, introduced a report on the consultation regarding proposed changes to the Adult Social Care Contributions Policy.

 

The Cabinet Member introduced the report by outlining the scale of financial pressure facing Adult Social Care, with rising demand, increasing complexity of need, and wider reductions in government funding requiring the Council to identify savings whilst continuing to meet its statutory duties under the Care Act 2014. Officers advised that the Council supports over 6,800 adults and spends approximately £330 million per annum on Adult Social Care services.

 

The report set out three principal proposals. First, reducing the Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) allowance from 35% to 25% of disability benefits, while retaining the ability for individuals to request a full assessment where their actual costs exceed the standard allowance. Secondly, introducing a flat-rate charge of £10 per day for transport arranged by Adult Social Care. Thirdly, introducing a charge for all users of telecare services, increasing from the current £6 per week to the full cost of approximately £9.87 per week.

 

Officers explained that benchmarking indicated Oxfordshire’s current 35% DRE allowance was significantly higher than most other authorities, and that the proposed 25% rate would align more closely with typical levels of disability-related expenditure. It was emphasised that this would operate as a standard allowance rather than a fixed cap, with individuals still able to undergo a full assessment and receive a higher allowance where their disability-related costs exceed the standard rate.

 

The proposals formed part of a wider package of measures to address a forecast £5.4 million funding gap in 2026/27 and were expected to generate approximately £0.5 million in that year, rising to around £1.2 million on a full-year basis in future years.

 

Members sought clarification on the policy intent and justification for the proposals. Whilst Officers emphasised that the changes would improve consistency, fairness, and alignment with national guidance, Members questioned the extent to which the proposals were driven by financial pressures. Officers advised that both factors were relevant, noting that the Council was required to take action to ensure financial sustainability whilst maintaining a lawful and equitable charging framework.

 

The Committee explored the proposal to reduce the DRE allowance from 35% to 25%, with Members acknowledging the benchmarking evidence that Oxfordshire’s current rate was comparatively generous. However, Members raised concerns that the proposed reduction would represent a tangible financial impact on many service users, citing examples from the report which showed reductions of approximately £11.46 per week for higher-rate benefits and £7.67 for standard rates.

 

Members questioned whether alternative approaches, including a more gradual reduction, had been fully considered. Officers confirmed that alternative scenarios had been modelled at a high level but advised that the proposed approach reflected the scale and immediacy of the financial challenge. Members noted that limited comparative detail had been provided, which constrained the Committee’s ability to assess proportionality.

 

A significant part of the discussion focussed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24/26

25/26

Committee Forward Work Plan pdf icon PDF 146 KB

The Committee is recommended to AGREE its work programme for forthcoming meetings, having heard any changes from previous iterations, and taking account of the Cabinet Forward Plan and of the Budget Management Monitoring Report.

Minutes:

The Committee AGREED to the forward work programme. Officers would discuss the scope and potential for an item of Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG).

26/26

Committee Action and Recommendation Tracker pdf icon PDF 129 KB

The Committee is recommended to NOTE the progress of previous recommendations and actions arising from previous meetings, having raised any questions on the contents.

Minutes:

The Committee NOTED the action and recommendation tracker.

27/26

Responses to Scrutiny Recommendations pdf icon PDF 165 KB

Attached is the Cabinet response to the People Overview and Scrutiny Committee report on the Unpaid Carer Strategy. The Committee is asked to NOTE the response.

Minutes:

The Committee NOTED the Cabinet response to the report on the Unpaid Carer Strategy.