Agenda item

Councillor Chandler explained the review was initiated due to budget pressures identified in social care, specifically the subsidy for Community Meals. Rather than making quick decisions, a thorough review was chosen to assess the service's value and explore alternative models, including both in-house and external options. The review's terms of reference were shared with the relevant committee, and the outcome was brought forward for examination, regardless of whether recommendations were radical or minor. The conclusion was to retain the service in-house, modernize it, improve user experience, and seek efficiencies to reduce the subsidy. 

Naomi outlined the review process, which began in spring. The aim was to get a comprehensive picture of the service and identify opportunities for change. Key findings included high user satisfaction, strong feedback on nutritional and social benefits, and a preference for a hot lunchtime meal. The review also identified opportunities to modernize delivery (e.g., using EVs and plug-in hot boxes), benchmarked costs with other authorities, and highlighted the need for further work to make the service more efficient and sustainable.

Key Questions from Members:

·         Councillor Howarth asked whether the benchmarking for service costs included only Torfaen or also other similar rural authorities like Denbighshire, noting that Monmouthshire’s rural nature could affect costs and comparability. He highlighted the significant cost difference with Torfaen and questioned if a more similar comparator had been used.

Officers responded and acknowledged Torfaen was used for initial benchmarking due to ease of engagement but recognised the differences in geography and population density. It was confirmed that in the next phase, comparisons would be expanded to include more similar authorities like Denbighshire, as suggested by Councillor Howarth, to ensure more relevant benchmarking.

·         Councillor Jones asked about the type of training provided to Community Meals drivers, especially as their role aligns with domiciliary care and involves important social contact with residents. She wanted to know how drivers are prepared to handle issues they might encounter during deliveries.

Officers explained that all drivers receive a robust induction, mandatory training, and additional training in safeguarding and first aid. Drivers are supported by senior staff for debriefing and supervision if they encounter issues, and ongoing workforce planning will address any further training needs as the service evolves.

·         Councillor Bond asked if there are sufficient resources to complete all phase two actions, such as implementing digital solutions and conducting reviews, or if extra resources will be needed.

Officers confirmed the work will be done within existing resources by forming a small project team from relevant departments, with no additional resource requests planned. Staff with digital skills are already available for the project.

·         Councillor Bond questioned the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA), specifically about the impact on care leavers and care-experienced people, and whether there are any legal implications for this group.

The response clarified that most service users are elderly, with no known care leavers receiving community meals, so there is no direct impact. However, it was acknowledged that care-experienced people could be present in the cohort, and the IIA could be updated to reflect this consideration.

·         Councillor Bond also asked about the significant increase in numbers in Caldicot and whether there was an explanation for this.

Officers indicated that numbers fluctuate dynamically based on assessed need, and there is no specific reason identified for the increase in Caldicot.

·         Councillor Butler asked about the use of locally based foods in the service, specifically how much local food is used in the meals and where the meals are prepared, as well as how many people are employed in meal preparation.

The explanation given was that currently, meals are purchased from a large, non-local supplier providing frozen plated meals. Phase two will explore options for sourcing and preparing meals locally, including potential procurement from local suppliers. The number of people employed in meal preparation was not specified.

·         Councillor Butler also asked about the mechanism for residents to access the service.

The response given stated that referrals are currently made via adult social care intake, requiring an assessed need. Phase two will consider whether self-referral or a broader preventative model could be appropriate.

Chair’s Summary:

The Chair concluded by highlighting interest in local-based opportunities from the review, reassuring that Monmouthshire is not discontinuing community meals but is exploring alternative delivery methods, and suggested that if there were no further questions, the Committee could thank the officers and move to the next agenda item.