8 CONCLUSION: THE RINGFENCE
188. As we have described earlier, the consequence
of paying Supporting People funding through the Area Based Grant
was the lifting of the ringfence around that funding. Funds nominally
granted for Supporting People services may now be spent by local
authorities as they wish. This is intended to bring about greater
flexibility for local areas in delivering their own priorities
for housing-related support and wider welfare and other services.
189. The removal of the ringfence is a crucial moment
in the development of Supporting People services: it was one of
the reasons why we decided to undertake this inquiry at this time.
We have left this issue to this final, concluding section of our
Report because, as we shall see, it needs to be viewed in the
context of the other developments affecting the Supporting People
programme.
The decision to remove the ringfence
190. The then Secretary of State for Communities
and Local Government wrote to local authority chief executives
and the chairs of Local Strategic Partnerships in October 2007
to inform them that CLG aimed to include the Supporting People
programme grant in the un-ringfenced Area Based Grant from April
2009 "dependent on pilots in 2008/09 not raising serious
concerns".[228]
Evidence from CLG to this inquiry stated that:
Overall, the views from the [pilot] group about
the best way forward were clearly in favour of increased funding
flexibility. This represented a changed position from the beginning
of the project when many of the learning network members were
in favour of keeping the ringfence.[229]
191. Indeed, in evidence to this inquiry, we heard
many examples of how these new freedoms will improve innovation
and allow services to reach those who haven't been reached before,
as the Audit Commission demonstrates:
Inspections and advice work have identified a
number of areas where innovation and improvement in delivery have
already taken place and could be enhanced by the removal of the
ringfence and parameters which some authorities have been reluctant
to lose to date.[230]
192. Views from other witnesses present a more varied
picture. On one hand, many stakeholders appreciate the freedoms
and flexibilities afforded by the lifting of the ringfence and
its associated grant conditions; on the other, some consider that
re-imposition of the ringfence would act as a necessary national
safeguard to the programme.
193. The Audit Commission's memorandum states that
"It goes without saying that maintaining service funding
without a ringfence will be harder going forward."[231]
The Commission, along with a great many other witnesses, also
suggests that:
The decision to remove the ringfence was taken
in a different regulatory and economic climate. The recession
brings further pressures and heightens risk. It is likely that
more individuals may become vulnerable and need support because
of the pressures of economic recession. There may be an increase
in depression and other mental health problems, and more individuals
may turn to alcohol or drugs and experience the threat of losing
their home. Academic research has shown that compulsory redundancies
are linked to increases in domestic violence.[232]
The suggestion of increased demand is borne out by
the experience of some provider organisations, as, for example,
Southdown Housing Association:
We have seen significant increase in demand in
the last four to six months in our homelessness schemes as people
default on their mortgages or tenancy agreements (we are seeing
people who in the past would not have been our traditional client
group).[233]
However, Roy Irwin of the Audit Commission was keen
to point out that "The […]ring-fence did not guarantee
good services, as our inspections show. Although people are concerned
about the removal of the ringfence, our inspection evidence does
show that, even with the presence of all the arrangements around
grant conditions, too many authorities did not deliver good services."[234]
194. Notwithstanding the arguments for and against
a ringfence, most witnesses agreed on one point: that the pilot
exercise in lifting the ringfence had been too short and that
it was impossible to truly predict so early on what the impact
would be. When we put this to the Minister, we were reminded that
"in addition to the pilots 122 local authorities already
had greater freedoms and flexibilities because of their [Comprehensive
Performance Assessment] star ratings[235]
and could have been moving money out of Supporting People programmes
into other areas. That they have not done that indicates that
the fears or concerns expressed will not be shown to be true."[236]
However, an 'Excellent' authority's performance would usually
be of less concern that one not so rated. It is the prospect of
less well-performing authorities being given additional freedoms
which has given rise to some apprehension.
195. When we asked the Minister whether the ringfence
pilots had been long enough, he told us that "Given that
so many of the projects are commissioned over a two or three-year
period if you wanted to run them longer you would have had to
run pilots over quite a considerable period."[237]
Although intended in defence of the Government's actions, this
comment rather seems to concur with the majority view that it
would have been necessary to extend the pilots in order fully
to understand the outcomes of un-ringfencing in the longer term.
196. When asked how the Government intended to protect
against potential negative impacts of lifting the ringfence, Lorraine
Regan of CLG told us
local authorities submit their financial data
to us on an annual basis. That will continue at least in the short
term, so we shall be able to look at the impact of where funding
is spent over the next couple of years within the spending review
period, if not longer. We shall be able to see if funding is being
shifted out completely or how it is being shifted within the particular
client group.[238]
197. For many stakeholders, however, any discussion
of short term protections are less relevant than the long-term
financial certainty of the programme, as Westminster Council describes:
Generally it has been the Comprehensive Spending
Reviews (CSR) and the consequent allocations of grant to authorities
that has had the most impact on commissioning policy and front
line service delivery. This is as opposed to any grant conditions,
ring fencing of the programme or deliberate decisions by authorities
to move funding away from 'unpopular or mobile groups.' It is
recognised that officers within the CLG Supporting People team
did excellently when making the case for the programme to the
Treasury in the previous CSRs, securing the national settlement
of c. £1.7bn. However the previous CSRs were at a time of
relative economic prosperity whereas the next one will almost
certainly take place at a time of recession and great pressure
on public sector finance. It will be essential to the future of
the programme that the CLG SP team again makes the case for the
Supporting People programme with vigour and a strong evidence
base as this is what will safeguard the programme going forward.[239]
198. CLG has acknowledged concerns about the lifting
of the ringfence and has put in place a 'Transition Package' which
consists of measures such as helping local authorities to better
understand the cost benefits of preventative housing-related support,
spreading best practice learned from ringfence pilots, and supporting
providers to improve capacity to respond to the new commissioning
and procurement environment. Some stakeholders argue that an extension
of the current Transition Package may help to relieve some of
the pressures and concerns brought about by the lifting of the
ringfence.
Concerns about the lifting of
the ringfence
199. As we have discussed throughout our report,
the lifting of the ringfence stands to impact the Supporting People
programme in a variety of ways, and is the driver behind the majority
of conclusions and recommendations we make. We draw consideration
of these impacts together in the following paragraphs.
PRESSURE ON LOCAL AUTHORITY BUDGETS
200. Despite the availability of robust financial
and outcomes data demonstrating the benefits of the Supporting
People programme, the majority of the evidence we received showed
a great deal of concern amongst witnesses that Supporting People
services may be cut, or their funding reduced, as a result of
the ringfence being lifted. The reasons for this were very consistent,
with pressure on local authority budgets—particularly in
Adult Social Care—and the risk of funding being diverted
from 'electorally unpopular' groups and those not eligible for
statutory services being the most commonly cited.
201. Sitra outlined these concerns in their evidence:
The single biggest concern is that the pressure
on statutory services will result in a diversion of funds away
from groups that do not have statutory protection and the most
socially excluded. There is also concern that many groups who
receive [housing-related support] services will be vulnerable
as they are not electorally popular, a factor which will become
more significant in locally determined budget decisions than in
a national programme.[240]
202. The realities of the financial pressures on
local authorities were acknowledged by Cllr Anne McCoy of Stockton-on-Tees,
who told us
My concern is that because there are so many
pressures, and there certainly have been some major ones this
year, with Baby Peter, the Mencap review of the six unnecessary
deaths, learning disability, dementia strategy […] if Supporting
People is not identified, the pressures could be put on that budget.
[…] if I was to say, yes, I could guarantee that it will
not be touched, you would not believe me, because of these pressures,
but they are so valuable in the smaller targeted service that
they produce and the benefits they give to the people of the borough
who are in need, that I think it is vital that it is ringfenced.[241]
203. We conclude that pressure on local authority
budgets is a potential threat to the future of some existing Supporting
People services and to the likelihood of currently unmet need
being addressed in future. The question is how best to
address that threat, recognising that it applies equally to other
local authority services, and that local people should in principle
be in the best position to determine how best to allocate resources.
PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL LOCAL
AUTHORITIES
204. In its evidence, the Audit Commission was insistent
that, in respect of well-performing local authorities, it had
few concerns for the future of housing-related support. When we
asked Roy Irwin how confident he was about the abilities of local
authorities and their partners to deliver Supporting Services
following a reduction in central government direction and guidance,
he told us that
I think my confidence, if you want a score between
none and ten, around maintaining services I think I would go for
seven because in the better places—better run in terms of
Supporting People—there is recognition of value for money
that these are relatively cheap services […] but some authorities
still would not be good enough, whereas some authorities would
be excellent.[242]
205. Nevertheless, concerns remain about less
well-performing local authorities with regard to their understanding
of the value of Supporting People and in their approaches to commissioning
and procurement of services. We understand that CLG is targeting
support to such authorities but, despite this, we are concerned
that additional freedoms in the spending of Supporting People
funds could be misused in local authorities where Supporting People
is misunderstood or not seen as a mainstream part of service delivery.
We support moves to devolve decision making and control over budgets
to the local level. However, as we relate above, we are uncertain
at this stage how well the new Comprehensive Area Assessment will
identify where the needs of vulnerable people are not being met
and believe that there is a possibility that the needs of vulnerable
people could go un-served and unnoticed in some areas without
a continued specific focus on housing-related support.
LOSS OF SUPPORTING PEOPLE GOVERNANCE
AND OPERATING STRUCTURES
206. The evidence we received suggests that local
authorities may seek to rationalise current arrangements for service
user engagement, commissioning and procuring Supporting People
services within Local Strategic Partnerships and wider arrangements
for social care or corporate procurement with the lifting of the
ringfence. As we have already concluded, we see this as a serious
risk to the future of housing-related support and believe that
the continued existence of such structures is critical in the
absence of a ringfence on Supporting People funding.
LOSS OF QAF AND OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK
207. As Sitra told us, "There was some concern
[amongst Sitra's members] that use of the QAF might decline if
SP teams are dissolved, as more generic commissioners may not
understand it or its value."[243]
However, Sitra's members also felt that one of the benefits of
ring fence removal might be "the extension into other areas
of social care commissioning of the QAF."[244]
Whilst the evidence shows that the vast majority of local authorities
have chosen to continue to use the QAF, the uncertainty of
future arrangements for the commissioning and procurement of Supporting
People services leads us to conclude that any loss of robust mechanisms
for assuring quality and assessing outcomes would be a serious
threat to the future of housing-related support. The QAF and Outcomes
Framework have proven their worth in ensuring quality, promoting
effective and consistent local and regional commissioning, and
providing an unambiguous evidence base of the value of Supporting
People services. We are therefore pleased to note that the
QAF and Outcomes Framework are both alluded to in the recent Shaping
the Future of Care Together Green Paper:
The Government has already started to build the
evidence base in care and support […] Housing-related support
services have a strong evidence base supporting them. The sector
has a Quality Assessment Framework and an Outcomes Framework to
provide a consistent baseline for judging quality and effectiveness.
The housing sector can also demonstrate the financial benefits
delivered by its services, with estimated net savings of around
£2.8 billion.[245]
We note that the Audit Commission's recent report
Supporting People Programme 2005-2009 reaches a similar
conclusion, namely that local authorities should consider "demonstrating
commitment to the continuation of and the collation and reporting
of information under the QAF and the CLG national outcomes framework."[246]
LOSS OF PROFILE
208. Many witnesses feel that the loss of the ringfence
will collapse the Supporting People 'brand'. Provider organisation
Look Ahead Housing and Care, for example, told us
One of the most useful functions of the 'SP Programme'
is that it draws together individuals with a diverse set of core
support needs (i.e. mental health, learning disabilities, homelessness,
young people etc) into one recognisable 'uber-group' (known as
Supporting People).[247]
The importance of this brand in promoting the needs
of vulnerable and 'invisible' individuals was recognised by most
witnesses. As Jane Keeper of Refuge told us in oral evidence,
she was "extremely alarmed"[248]
by the removal of the ringfence as "we have valued the framework
of Supporting People in making visible our client group and helping
us in our work of being a voice for the voiceless."[249]
The point is also recognised in the Audit Commission's report
Supporting People Programme 2005-2009, which recommends
that local authorities should consider "continuing to promote
the planning, procurement and commissioning of services under
the banner [of] Supporting People in order to sustain the identity
for service users, providers and all commissioners."[250]
209. The Supporting People Strategy committed the
Government to appointing Regional Champions for Supporting People,
although there was little awareness of the existence of Champions
in the evidence we received. In its written evidence, Hact stated
that
Supporting People needs champions at all levels
both within and outside Government to ensure that the successes
of the programme continue to be delivered and built upon. Although
delivery is predominantly at the local level, Government should
have a responsibility and commitment to championing Supporting
People and take a lead in monitoring how it is delivered by local
authorities [...][251]
However, the Dorset Provider Forum's view was that
Providers were unable to say who the Regional
Champions were and therefore have no knowledge of their impact.[252]
As we discussed earlier in our report, we do not
believe that it would be appropriate at this stage to put Supporting
People on a statutory footing, nor are we persuaded that there
is a need to compel local authorities to adopt mandatory performance
indicators for housing-related support. However, we do believe
that retaining the Supporting People 'brand' and championing its
purpose will be very important in the absence of other protections.
Conclusions
210. Without doubt, the Supporting People programme
has achieved a great deal and it is our view that any avoidable
threats to its continued success must be averted. The value of
Supporting People has been demonstrated to us not only in robust
financial terms, but also through the volume and strength of submissions
we received during our inquiry, which show how the programme has
transformed many vulnerable people's lives.
211. With the lifting of the ringfence, we are
concerned that many 'protections' of Supporting People are being
lost simultaneously in particularly challenging economic circumstances.
Nonetheless, we are supportive of the Government's overall
policy of reducing ring-fenced funding, and consider that there
is much to be gained from the greater flexibility which it offers.
We do not, therefore, recommend the reimposition of the ringfence
on Supporting People funding.
212. We conclude that fears about the loss of
funding to Supporting People services can best be countered by
ensuring that it is clear to all concerned how much money has
been allocated to a council for those services; and how much the
council has actually spent on them. We therefore recommend continued
transparency in the allocation of Supporting People funding in
the Area-Based Grant. Local authorities should not be required
to spend funds allocated on the basis of assessed need for housing-related
support on those services if they consider that it would be better
spent elsewhere. They should, however, be required to justify,
and account for, any decision to do so. This local accountability,
combined with the retention and enhancement of the other protections
which we have recommended, should ensure that the Supporting People
programme continues to deliver vital services to some of the most
vulnerable in our society.
228 Ev 228 Back
229
Ev 229 Back
230
Ev 176 Back
231
Ev 177 Back
232
Ev 171 Back
233
Ev 78 Back
234
Q 2 Back
235
The ringfence protected the overall Supporting People budget by
requiring administering authorities to spend the funding on housing-related
support or, for local authorities rated 'Excellent' under Comprehensive
Performance Assessment, on wider welfare services. 'Excellent'
authorities therefore had the opportunity to spend Supporting
People funds on areas such as social care.In 2008, 42% of councils
were given the 4 star 'Excellent' rating under CPA. Back
236
Q 300 Back
237
Q 300 Back
238
Q 302 Back
239
Ev 104 Back
240
Ev 198 Back
241
Q 211 Back
242
Q 11 Back
243
Ev 201 Back
244
Ibid. Back
245
HM Government, Shaping the Future of Care Together, Cm 7673, July
2009, p 78. Back
246
Audit Commission (for Communities and Local Government), Supporting
People Programme 2005-2009 (July 2009), p 62. Back
247
Ev 91 Back
248
Q 80 Back
249
Ibid. Back
250
Audit Commission (for Communities and Local Government), Supporting
People Programme 2005-2009 (July 2009),
p 61. Back
251
Ev 179 Back
252
Ev 100 Back
| 
