Memorandum from Southdown Housing Association
(SPP 11)
1. Southdown Housing Association believes
that the Supporting People Programme and the four key themes of
"Independence and Opportunity": Our Strategy for Supporting
People have largely been delivered and that the SP programmes
in the areas we work (East and West Sussex and Brighton &
Hove) have had a positive impact on the housing related needs
of vulnerable people.
2. Southdown provides a range of SP funded
programmes and supports nearly 2,000 people at any one time
in these programmes (we operate large homelessness prevention,
floating support and accommodation based services and work with
people with mental health needs, learning and physical disabilities,
sensory disabilities, substance misuse, people fleeing domestic
violence, young people, gypsies and travellers).
3. Our concerns about removing the ring
fence are described below.
4. We hold serious concerns in the ability
and success of Supporting People teams to be actively involved
or able to influence the promotion and ongoing support of the
SP programme within Local Area agreements/Area Based Grants. Direct
feedback from two of the SP Lead Officers in the local authorities
we work with is that they themselves have significant fears about
the continuation of the programme—their biggest fear being
that Adult Social Care will use some of the SP budget for non
housing related activities.
5. Not all Local Area Agreements include
the Housing and Housing Support Key Indicators and therefore the
impetus to invest in delivering these is lost or seriously reduced.
6. Although Local Area Agreements are meant
to include the District and Borough in Local Area Agreements and
the subsequent allocation of funds for Councils in two-tier authorities
we see a mismatch between the pressures facing District and Borough
Councils and the funding being channelled through local authorities.
7. SP grant is currently paid to County
Councils when many of the responsibilities around housing and
homelessness are the remit of District and Boroughs. In our experience
there can be poor communication between SP teams/commissioning
and Districts/Boroughs. This poses concerns about how well they
can work together in the future environment of Area Based Grants
(we have lesser concerns about this in Unitary Authorities).
8. We have not experienced any positive
or practical examples of joint commissioning and to the contrary
have witnessed very fraught and unproductive attempts to agree
to joint commissioning. The pattern we have seen is that SP teams
are keen to promote joint commissioning and have set up strategies
and meetings to take this forward. In each circumstance it has
been Adult Social Care and/or Health that have agreed with the
principle, but when they realise what this would mean for their
budgets have pulled the drawbridge up and refused to continue
with the strategy. In one local authority joint commissioning
discussions and activity began 3 years ago and to date nothing
has been agreed.
9. Another example of a lack of commitment
to joint commissioning has been Adult Social Care and/or Health
setting up new services that would have been eligible for some
elements of housing related support SP funding but completely
ignoring this pot of funding. This is a disappointing and short-sighted
approach and just reinforces that lack of appreciation or commitment
to SP funding.
10. A new, and very worrying trend is that
the hourly rate for SP services is being compared to the domiciliary
care hourly rates that local authorities use. We are even more
concerned about this trend when the ring-fence for SP is removed
and services are judged against other LA type services. We would
argue that the skill level required to prevent homelessness, resolve
debt issues and support people to sustain tenancies is much greater
than that required for domiciliary care. In addition we are required
to meet far higher and more complex quality performance indicators
through the QAF system. There is a wealth of knowledge and experience
in the Supported Housing workforce and it will be a tragedy for
the sector and the very vulnerable members of society if we see
SP contracts awarded to the domiciliary care sector.
11. We believe that the constraints put
on SP teams by trying to align them with the social care market
leads to a "bean counting" mentality and takes them
away from outcome focused commissioning when we should be raising
the game in terms of the aspirations of the people receiving support.
12. Throughout the SP teams we are seeing
only Interim Heads being appointed and feel that the excellent
leadership and innovation that has become the hallmark of many
SP services could be lost. It is clear when speaking to the Interim
Heads that they are not confident that their roles will exist
into the future with the removal of the ring fencing and that
SP contracts will be consumed alongside other Adult Social Care
contracts. This is a serious concern as we have very little evidence
that people within Adult Social Care really grasp or appreciate
the specialist nature of housing related support services.
13. Other general concerns about the Supporting
People Programme:
14. We are already seeing a reduction and
stalling of innovation within the SP programme. In recent years
the main emphasis of SP teams has been procurement of existing
services through tendering. Although this has included some new
elements of innovation the time taken up through these large scale
procurement programmes is stifling this. The balance of power
of SP teams as Commissioners does not allow SP providers (experts
by experience) the opportunities to bring forward their own ideas
and innovations. The supported housing sector has a long and rich
history of innovation, but the contract culture has eroded this
significantly—to the detriment of the sector and service
users.
15. All three of our local authorities have
had their SP allocations cut significantly in real terms and these
cuts have been passed onto providers or have led to services being
decommissioned. Year on year cuts to contract budgets have brought
significant pressures to supported housing organisations and this
has created questions as to the future viability of some providers.
16. Although some funding has become available
through efficiencies and getting better value for money this often
only covers the reduction in grant allocations to each local authority.
There is limited funding available for unmet or increasing needs.
17. 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).
18. The temporary or time limited nature
of support is good for some people in some situations but for
people who have been chronically homeless or who have enduring
or fluctuating mental health needs it is not a suitable option.
19. We fully support Floating Support as
a key plank of the Supporting People programme but we have no
floating support scheme that allows us to work with people for
more than two years. We estimate that up to 20% of our current
service users have long and enduring support needs that cannot
be meet or addressed within a two-year limited time period.
20. Our only long term services are accommodation
based but proportionately this is a tiny and shrinking area. We
have seen a drop off in the development of new supported accommodation
units since the link between capital and revenue has been severed
and while we support the idea that where possible people should
continue to be supported in mainstream social or private sector
housing, there is still a need for specialist designated supported
housing.
21. Suggestions for the future:
22. Reapply the ring fence or at least insist
that an equivalent or greater spend needs to be allocated to Housing
Related Support.
Where services have two income streams there
has to be joint commissioning (very little evidence of this where
Southdown works). We support the idea of setting maximum amounts
of SP funding within such schemes.
Health need to be involved in joint commissioning.
Give District and Borough Councils a much greater
say over this element of the Area Based Grant.
Find some mechanism to re-establish the link
between capital and revenue funding.
23. The Cap Gemini report showed that for
every £1 spent on Supporting People services nearly
the same again was saved by the exchequer in terms of the preventative
role of Housing related support. We would urge the Committee to
remember this. SP does represent very good value for money and
at a time of increased issues about housing and homelessness and
the consequences of unemployment there should be no dilution of
SP funding.
April 2009
| 
