Memorandum by Foundations (SVP 02)
CURRENT FUNDING
SITUATION OF
THE HIA PROGRAMMES
AND THE
COMPARISON BETWEEN
GOVERNMENT POLICY
AND FUNDING
LEVELS
— The funding arrangements for HIAs
are complex. Unlike most other Supporting People providers, HIAs
are only part funded by Supporting People. When HIAs were first
funded by central government in the 1980s, they received a grant
that was channelled through, and matched by, their local Housing
Authority, to cover the running costs of a "core" service
(please see attached description of a core service). Over the
years, HIAs have sought funding from other local commissioners
and charities in order to expand and to develop additional services.
The position in 2002-03 was that the total ODPM funding for HIAs,
transferred to local Supporting People pots, accounted for just
under 30% of the running costs of the sector.
— Other sources of income include Housing
Authorities, Social Services, PCTs, Managing Agents, charities
and fees charged for delivering grant-aided works.
— The Government's approach to HIA
policy has been exemplary. ODPM, with Department of Health, issued
a consultation paper in 2002, and commissioned research to establish
the most appropriate structures and commissioning arrangements
for a successful sector in new environment of Supporting People,
and for the future. The Government's policy, announced by Tony
McNulty on 6 May 2003, was based on the evidence from the consultation
and the research. A summary of the research findings are on Foundations'
website, and the full report can be ordered from Foundations.
— The amount that the Government have
allocated for the implementation of the policy, however, is inadequate
to deliver it in full. The Government's original intention was
to achieve full geographical coverage of HIAs across England by
April 2005. The funding available, however, was not sufficient
to achieve this, and the intention announced by Tony McNulty in
May 2003 was, therefore, for extended geographical coverage rather
than full. The funding for geographical expansion is £2 million
to be allocated for 2004-05.
— ODPM invited bids from Supporting
People Administering Authorities, with a deadline of 31 January
2004, and funded a Development Support Team in Foundations to
facilitate the process and encourage bids that meet government
policy. All bids must demonstrate a local funding commitment of
at least the amount bid for. The process has been very successful
with 82 bids submitted, amounting to over £5 million, and
demonstrating a local funding commitment of around £7.5 million.
The level of funding available obviously means that allocating
it has been a difficult process, and is not yet concluded. ODPM
plans to inform SP Administering Authorities of the outcome of
the bidding round by 31 March.
THE EFFECTS
OF THE
MOVE OF
SUPPORTING PEOPLE
INTO THE
HOMELESS DIRECTORATE
— When the move was announced we expressed
some concern on a general level and specifically in relation to
HIAs. We thought that our general concern would probably be resolved
merely by the intended change of name for the Homelessness Directorate.
Our view was that as Supporting People covers such a wide range
of services to people in a wide range of circumstances, it would
make more sense for the Directorate to be called Supporting People
(or another name), and to include homelessness; rather than the
other way round. The new name still gives Homelessness a prominence
that does not reflect the range of clients of Supporting People
providers.
— Our more specific concern was that
HIAs have such a strong association with housing, particularly
private sector housing and private sector renewal. It will be
very important for Foundations and the sector to maintain strong
links with the Housing Directorate; and for both Directorates
to be mindful of the impact of policies and actions of one on
the other. Foundations played a key role in guiding HIAs through
the transition to Supporting People, highlighting for the National
SP Team the unintended implications for HIAs of particular SP
policies, and helping to find solutions. We will need to have
these kinds of links in both Directorates in order to ensure we
can continue in this role.
— As yet, on a day-to-day basis, the
move to the new Directorate has had little impact. The ongoing
reorganisation has created some gaps in support from ODPM, but
we are optimistic that these will be temporary.
THOUGHTS ON
THE REVENUE
OR CAPITAL
FUNDING OF
THE SUPPORTING
PEOPLE PROGRAMME
— There is an inevitable tension when
there is national policy from central government, with local discretion
on the use of funding. Three examples specifically related to
HIAs are:
— The £2 million additional funding
mentioned above. This is granted for geographical expansion or
improving capacity by restructuring of HIAs, to achieve government
policy for HIAs. However, it will go into the local, unringfenced
SP pots. There is the danger, therefore, that local decisions
could be made in the future to spend it on other services.
— The tenure of HIA clients. Central
Government support for HIAs has been because they provide valuable
services to an increasingly significant group of people, for whom
few services are available—older and disabled homeowners
and private sector tenants—and this was dictated by the
conditions attached to the ODPM grant for HIAs. With the transfer
of central government funding to local Supporting People pots,
the grant conditions are lifted, and SP Administering Authorities
have local discretion to require HIAs to deliver cross-tenure
services. This is not a problem for HIAs as long as the services
to social housing tenants are fully funded by the appropriate
landlords and the local SP Administering Authority. If local decisions
are made to extend services across tenure without adequate additional
funding, then homeowners and private sector tenants will inevitably
lose out, an outcome that would be counter to government policy.
— The Department of Health has recently
shown considerable confidence in the value of HIAs in delivering
housing-related health targets. In Autumn 2002, they announced
£9.5 million over the next 3 years for HIAs to help deliver
targets on promoting independent living, specifically preventing
hospital admission and speeding up hospital discharge. The funding
was included in the Access and Systems Capacity Grant (ASCG).
The amount in 2003-04 was small—£1.6 million; the amount
in 2004-05 is significant—almost £6.5 million. In the
meantime, however, the ASCG has been "unringfenced".
This means that while the Department of Health continue to advise
Local Authorities to use this money to develop HIA services, and
provide indicative amounts for each Authority, there are no sanctions
against local decisions to use the funding for other purposes.
— I mentioned at the beginning that
the funding arrangements for HIAs are complex. HIAs are small
organisations, most with less than four staff, delivering very
practical services across housing, health and social care at the
same time as juggling the requirements of multiple commissioners.
Our concern is to develop larger more robust HIAs through restructuring,
and to simplify their funding arrangements if possible. There
are no instant solutions to the latter, because their cross-cutting
services inevitably mean that their funding is coming through
multiple government departments and multiple decision-making processes.
One of our recommendations in the Structures and Commissioning
Project was that we should try to use the opportunity of Supporting
People to simplify the arrangements. For example, in theory, it
should be possible to simplify the arrangements if:
— Local SP Commissioning bodies agreed
both to pool all the funding from the different local sources
(eg SP pot, Housing Authority, Social Services, PCT, police),
and to one SP contract covering their requirements for the local
HIA(s). The HIA could then have one contract, administered by
the SP Administering Authority
— Earmarked funding by ODPM and other
government departments, such as Department of Health flowed through
the same route, rather than different routes.
However, such suggestions would not
be workable at the moment because putting all the funding intended
for HIAs through the unringfenced SP pot could endanger all their
funding, and would not be acceptable either to HIAs or their funders,
particularly in 2-tier Authorities!
For the moment, a variety of different local arrangements
are being made across the country by SP Administering Authorities.
For HIAs and managing agents that deliver services to more than
one Authority, these differences have inadvertently increased
funding and contract complexities.
Finally, an even greater impact on the Government's
strategy of promoting Independent Living with a good quality of
life could be realised if the revenue funding was increased, and
capital funding was more available, certain and flexibly used.
|
