Memorandum from Look Ahead (SPP 16)
LOOK AHEAD
HOUSING AND
CARE
Every year Look Ahead works in partnership with
27 local authorities and health trusts to deliver housing
and support services to some 4,000 people across London and
the South East.
Many of these individuals are amongst societies
most vulnerable and socially excluded and a core element of our
support is therefore delivered as part of the Supporting People
(SP) programme. Indeed, last year amongst those we helped were:
— young people, care leavers, teenage parents;
— people with mental health needs;
— people with learning disabilities;
— homeless families, single homeless people
and rough sleepers;
— women and children fleeing domestic violence;
— people with substance misuse issues;
and
— people with offending histories.
Our philosophy is to build on customers own
strengths and to enable them to transform their lives, play an
active part in the local community and to access appropriate training,
education and employment opportunities and to equip customers
to achieve their own aims and aspirations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Assessing the Impact of "Supporting
People"?
— One of the fundamental strengths of the
SP programme has been the extent to which it required providers
(and commissioners) to embrace the concept of customer involvement.
— As SP had specialist commissioning it
resulted in commissioners being in a better position to fund services
which matched the reality on the ground.
— By having a single (unifying) recognisable
programme it helped raise the profile of all the vulnerable groups
involved. In effect the strength of the case for each group was
harnessed to create a more compelling "combined" argument
for supporting people.
— All providers of SP services regularly
complete several data monitoring exercises. While we would never
advocate for unnecessary information requirements, we recognise
the many benefits which have been gained as a result.
— The involvement of the third sector has
been absolutely vital. However, while relationships with commissioners
are more straightforward, forging connections with the wider stakeholders
can be more difficult.
— Anything less than a three year contract
can be difficult so moving to a three year environment was more
helpful. Yet a problem with the SP contracting environment was
that at times it remained disproportionately weighted in favour
of the local authority.
— Though the extent of demands in terms
of information has probably increased since the introduction of
SP, we would support the provision of useful information and have
noted with a welcome the increasing move towards outcome related
data.
— We feel that there is still a need for
supported housing to be better integrated into the wider council
and local area framework.
— Since SP started providers have had to
deliver better and better services while funding has been increasingly
squeezed. The lack of a (relative) funding increase will continue
to impact on the services that those who are most vulnerable receive.
— The introduction of the SP programme
with its resultant focus on quality assurance has ensured that
providers are able to demonstrate excellence while also ensuring
that any validation is done against a consistent and agreed set
of standards.
— The case for supported housing (and thus
for SP) is an extremely powerful one. This includes the Capgemini
financial modelling which suggested that the "…net
financial benefits from the Supporting People Programme is £2.77 billion
per annum for the client groups considered (against an overall
investment of £1.55 billion)".[1]
2. Assessing the Existing and Potential Future
Impact of the Removal of the "Supporting People" Ring-Fence?
Existing Impact?
— It is far too soon to make any objective
comment as to the existing impact of the removal of the ring-fence
given that it has only been one month (April 1st) since it happened.
— As a number of authorities may not yet
have engaged in reconsidering the balance of services, it is not
yet possible to talk definitively about changes in commissioning
priorities.
Potential Future Impact?
— Without the ring-fence there is a real
danger that some authorities will "top-slice" the substantial
SP funding to address fiscal shortfalls in other services, particularly
those related to statutory or "more strategically relevant"
(in view of the borough) services.
— As the two indicators which most closely
relate to supported housing (NI 141 and NI 142) have been
chosen by comparatively few local authorities, there is a danger
that if funding from the ABG is used to commission "strategically
relevant services" then SP services may lose out.
— Once SP funding is transferred into the
ABG it could lead to a commissioning system which is less technocratic
and needs related.
— Once SP commissioning and monitoring
moves into the realm of a larger department with more responsibilities,
the extent to which they can devote time to monitoring service
quality will surely reduce.
— By removing the ring fence there is the
possibility that the authority will be able to start commissioning
services which extend past the existing conditions. This could
have the effect of driving innovative new services and leading
to a more integrative approach to support.
3. Measures to Address the Negative Impacts
of Removing the Ring-Fence?
The Government's Transition Package
— While providers supported the announcement
of the transition measures, from a London based provider perspective
we do not feel that they have delivered as they should do.
Look Ahead's Suggested Measures
— Measure 1: Require Local Authorities
to "formally explain" any decision not to match spending
on supported housing against the most recent local needs assessment.
— Measure 2: CLG to monitor and review
the extent to which service provision matches the needs of those
who are most vulnerable
— Measure 3: Make National Indicator
141 and 142 a mandatory LAA indicator
— Measure 4: Develop new commissioning
guidance to ensure that service quality is a key determinant of
a successful tender
— Measure 5: A package of tools to support
the case for housing related support
1. Assessing the Impact of "Supporting
People"?
Theme 1: Keeping people that need services at
the heart of the Programme
Customer Involvement?
1.1 As an organisation Look Ahead is firmly
committed to (and has a well established reputation for) "…giving
all our customers the opportunity to influence our decisions and
services across the organisation".[2]
Yet, while much of our achievement is clearly as a result of the
significant importance we personally place on engaging customers,
it should also be recognised that one of the fundamental strengths
of the SP programme has been the extent to which it has required
providers (and commissioners) to embrace the concept of customer
involvement.
1.2 From the very beginning the programme
has rightly promoted the concept that the views of customers must
be core to the design and delivery of effective services. However,
it is only by having involvement embedded within the SP system,
and in particular the process for assessment, that it has been
able to properly ensure that providers have fully realised the
need for customers to be at the heart of services. As the Quality
Assessment Framework (QAF) notes "in order to achieve
the higher performance levels (A and B), providers need to have
integrated service user involvement into their approach to service
management and delivery".[3]
1.3 The impact of this emphasis on customer
involvement, while obviously different across providers and boroughs,
has nonetheless had positive implications for all involved. Firstly,
it has helped to make services much more tailored to the often
substantially different needs and circumstances of those receiving
support. When services are designed and where possible delivered
(co-production) with the individual it offers an approach more
suited and therefore more effective to their requirements. Secondly,
the process of involvement helps to build equity and to give people
a stake in the success of the operation. There are also benefits
to involvement in terms of new skills and opportunities often
not previously afforded to those who are most vulnerable. Finally
the integration of involvement into the standards has helped to
establish consistency while also allowing a framework for more
innovative providers to excel and offer more forward-thinking
opportunities.
Customer A was referred to Look Ahead (LA) from
an acute mental health ward having been in and out of hospital
for several years.
Once they had been at LA for a few months, Customer
A wanted to get more involved in influencing services. They began
attending the customer magazine editorial board, joined the Customer
Services Committee and volunteered to help out in the staff recruitment
process. They also got involved in a number of policy consultations.
While Customer A now feels more optimistic and
has recently finished studying for an NVQ, LA has benefited by
having projects and initiatives which are more customer focused,
for example a set of "Customer Expectations".
Analysing Need?
1.4 With regards to identifying the support
needs in a particular area, one of the beneficial elements of
SP is the broadly technocratic and specialised nature of commissioning.
1.5 While we may not always have agreed
with a council's assessment of needs and subsequent funding allocation,
we appreciate that the nature of demand coupled with the myriad
of possible support responses make efficacious commissioning a
highly complex and challenging task.
1.6 It has therefore been extremely beneficial
and important that SP has had specialist commissioning, which
in many cases is client group specific. It meant that commissioners
were able to focus both time and resources on the task of building
up relationships and on understanding and assessing the needs
of a particular area. This in turn resulted in them being in a
much more informed position to be able to fund services which
reflect the reality on the ground.
Winning the Argument?
1.7 One of the most useful functions of
the "SP programme" is that it draws together individuals
with a diverse set of core support needs (ie mental health, learning
disabilities, homelessness, young people etc) into one recognisable
"über-group" (known as Supporting People).
1.8 A key role for providers across any
support area is to make the case as to why individuals with particular
needs (ie mental health, learning disabilities etc) should receive
(limited) resources and help. However, decision makers and funders
(at both a local and especially national level) clearly have a
finite amount of resources and significant pulls upon these.
1.9 If advocates are having to make the
case separately for each core support need then it will inevitably
be harder to win the argument. Furthermore, experience has shown
that the level of influence each group could exert is not equitable
and certain groups are likely to enjoy more "public and political
support" than others are. This presents concerns, especially
if technocratic commissioning is compromised, that certain groups
will lose out.
1.10 By having a single unifying programme
it helps to raise the profile of all concerned. In effect the
strength of the case for each support need is harnessed to create
a more compelling "combined" collective case for supporting
people. This not only helped to support the most vulnerable but
it also would have had some impact on minimising the difficulties
that the least "popular" groups might have experienced.
Customer B was referred to Look Ahead with a
variety of support needs. They had just left custody for a series
of offences and were diagnosed as having a borderline personality
disorder and were suffering from depression.
By working with "Customer B" (and in
partnership with other agencies) we were able to support them
to gain new accommodation, address there mental health issues
and to obtain a computer from a charity. We have also helped them
to control and reduce their debt levels and to gain some voluntary
work while they apply for college.
An Improved Data Set?
1.11 All providers of SP services regularly
complete several data monitoring exercises including an "Outcomes
Framework". Indeed, while some of the indicators (and the
methodology behind them) may have had some technical difficulties
the extensive and wide ranging data set makes SP one of the most
monitored areas of its type.
1.13 While as a provider we would never
advocate for unnecessary or disproportionate information requirements
we recognise the many benefits which have been gained as a result
of the breadth of information available.
1.14 Firstly it has placed both commissioners
and providers in a much stronger position with regards to evidence
based policy making (EBPM). As the outcomes of particular actions
are known and reported both parties are able to identify what
works and to share that good practice, for example, we have enjoyed
particular success in relation to "move-on" from our
hostels and the good work that supports that can act as a show-case.
1.15 Secondly and linked in with the above
point is the fact that the information allows for a robust platform
from which to assess and judge how providers are performing against
a range of criteria. This helps support performance management
and has contributed to a sector which puts customers at the centre.
Theme 2: Enhancing partnership with the Third
Sector
Embracing the Third Sector?
1.16 The involvement of the third sector
has been absolutely vital to the success of the programme. While
commissioners may have the processes and frameworks to act as
enablers it is the third sector that have the experience, skills
and operational calibration to be able to deliver the challenging
agenda of SP.
1.17 The situation between providers and
commissioners can clearly differ depending upon the characteristics
and nature of the relationship; however, we would consider that
in our experience the relationship between the two is a pretty
positive one. There are evidently a whole host of factors which
result in this, not least a joint commitment to supporting those
who are most vulnerable, however, it is also the case that the
technocratic expertise of commissioners probably puts them in
a better position to appreciate and connect with third sector
providers than if they were further removed.
1.18 One criticism though related to embracement—which
will become more important given the move to ABG—is the
resources and complexity in building relations with the wider
local authority body (ie not SP). Though links with commissioners
occur automatically, forging connections with the wider council,
local politicians and other stakeholder bodies can be more difficult,
particularly when you have to do that across multiple areas. We
also feel that local authorities could do more (as could central
and regional bodies) to support providers to engage.
A Fair Contracting Environment?
1.19 The decision to move to a three year
contracting environment was a helpful decision. Anything less
then three years is challenging because it does not promote effective
service planning, it causes great uncertainty and does not demonstrate
significant confidence, which itself causes friction within a
commission/provider relationship.
1.20 The problem with the SP contracting
environment was that at times it was disproportionately weighted
in favour of the local authority. There were often clauses which
allow authorities to withdraw at short notice with little or no
punitive consequences. This made the sustainability of funding
appear precarious and did not actively promote an environment
in which providers could easily settle and thus plan for long
term service provision. Moreover, for smaller providers who may
have only a few contracts the uncertainty would temper against
introducing potentially innovative or forward thinking services
because they would be unwilling to risk.
The Reporting Regime?
1.21 As the SP strategy observed, "it
is important to have the right level of reporting and accountability".
As noted above (1.13) while we would not advocate for a burdensome
reporting regime, we recognise and support the many benefits that
come from the level of information and evidence associated with
the programme.
1.22 Though the extent of demands in terms
of information has probably increased since the introduction of
SP, we would support the provision of useful information and have
also noted with a welcome the increasing move towards outcome
related data.
Theme 3: Delivering in the new local government
landscape
Involvement in Local Area Agreement Planning?
1.23 While this theme principally concerns
the local authority it is just important to note how providers
(and the programme) have fitted into local planning.
1.24 It is impossible to give a homogeneous
response to this as like many subjects the experience differs
from authority to authority. However, as with the concern expressed
above (1.18), the difficulties in engaging wider than commissioners
have made it more complex to ensure that the voice of supported
housing providers is effectively heard. Indeed, while Look Ahead
is represented (at different layers) on several LSP's, for the
majority of our authorities, the only sector representation we
get are in the form of a general needs housing provider (or in
a few cases via a voluntary sector organisation). This is not
sufficient because the particular needs of supported housing providers
are not those experienced by general needs providers or by the
voluntary sector.
1.25 We feel that there is still a need
for supported housing to be better integrated into the wider council
framework. This is necessary not least because supported housing
impacts across a plethora of policy areas including worklessness,
health, the environment, criminal justice and equality and diversity.
This increased closeness requires both further work and effort
on behalf of providers but also a greater recognition and appreciation
that the local authority must include those from the supported
housing sector. Central government could also do more to support
providers in making the case while also putting further guidance
(and pressure?) on authorities to respond.
Funding and Investment?
1.26 One of the few real concerns with the
programme has been the increasingly tight financial conditions
under which providers have had to operate. Since SP started Look
Ahead like all providers has had to deliver improved services
while funding has been increasingly squeezed. For instance the
last SP spending review represented an 11% drop in funding while
nearly one third of authorities faced a cut.
1.27 The lack of a (relative) funding increase
will continue to impact on the services that those who are most
vulnerable receive. Because money is so tight it has meant both
that providers may not get the resources to be able to offer the
level of quality or innovation that they want and that commissioners
at times could be forced into not commissioning services which
are needed but are too expensive or that the services they commission
have to put a greater weight on economic factors than they would
want.
Statutory Base?
1.28 The previous SP strategy made clear
that "…we do not at this stage, consider it appropriate
to introduce new legislation around housing support".
This is not necessarily the place to re-consider the argument;
however, it is important to note that the individuals supported
by SP are often amongst the most marginalised and vulnerable.
Yet despite this they are not always viewed as groups to whom
public funds should be diverted.
1.29 The implications of this are that if
the funding is not ring-fenced there is a very real danger that
what resources there are which are intended for these individuals
will instead (if there is no direction) be steered towards supporting
those who are on a statutory footing, especially when the financial
system is in such a perilous state.
Theme 4: Increasing efficiency and reducing bureaucracy
Quality Standards?
1.30 One of the real strengths of the SP
has been its comprehensive and robust quality standards framework.
Prior to the introduction of SP, quality assurance and monitoring
was a hugely fragmented and "patchy" affair. While some
providers (like Look Ahead) worked hard to develop high quality
services this was not universally the case.
1.31 Yet because there was no common framework
against which quality could be validated, commissioners may have
found it more difficult to differentiate accurately between those
services which were both cost competitive but also deliver high
quality services (ie genuine value for money) and those that just
offered the right price. In essence, this situation was promoting
a "race to the bottom".
1.32 Arguably the lack of external validation
may have had the effect of disincentivising some providers from
delivering service improvement which may have improved operation
but had no discernable impact on the cost. Moreover, the lack
of a consistent and explicit framework meant it was potentially
harder for support providers to know in what areas they did and
did not meet commissioner expectations. This had the affect that
providers may not have been as well positioned to target (limited)
funds to meet commissioning needs as they could be.
1.33 The introduction of the SP programme
(and accompanying QAF monitoring system) with its resultant focus
on quality assurance has thus ensured that providers are able
to demonstrate excellence while also ensuring that any validation
is done against a consistent and agreed set of standards. In addition
but equally beneficial is that having an agreed but transparent
framework of standards allows all key stakeholders to engage in
a conversation as to what those standards should be and what constitutes
quality.
Theme 5: The Case for Supported Housing
Supportive Research?
1.34 The case for supported housing (and
thus for SP) is an extremely powerful one. The Capgemini financial
modelling suggested that the "…net financial benefits
from the Supporting People Programme is £2.77 billion
per annum for the client groups considered (against an overall
investment of £1.55 billion)".[4]
1.35 In addition much literature and research
has shown that the individual, the family, the wider community
and the exchequer all benefit. This includes in supporting people
back into training and employment, improving the physical and
mental health of individuals (for instance in lowering hospital
admissions), addressing any issues related to offending or anti-social
behaviour and general life skills or other help which will enable
individuals to lead more independent lives.
1.36 While there is no need to replicate
the findings from this research we would advocate that the committee
take account of any preliminary results which have come out of
the recent SP "Evaluation" undertaken by the Audit Commission
(AC).
Customer C came to be living in the Look Ahead
scheme when they were just 16 and suffering with depression.
C's father had perpetrated domestic violence against his wife
and his daughters and C had witnessed the abuse for a while. When
C's father began hitting C they knew it was time to leave.
When C moved in they identified through the support
plan the need for support around maintaining a tenancy, budgeting,
debt, identity and benefits as well as issues related to mental
health.
C now lives in a new flat and commutes to Portsmouth
three days a week to study Health and Social Care at University.
C is also hoping to become a social worker and wants to use their
life experience to help others in a similar situation.
2. Assessing the Existing and Potential Future
Impact of the Removal of the "Supporting People" Ring-Fence?
Existing Impact?
2.1 The problem with assessing the existing
impact of the removal of the ring-fence is three-fold. Firstly
it is far too soon to make any objective comment as it has only
been one month (April 1st) since the ring-fence has been formally
removed. Indeed, the Government's own evaluation of the 15 pilot
authorities[5]
(which ran for one year) observed that "some service providers
and Commissioning Bodies [felt it] to be too short a time in which
to evaluate the impacts of ending ring fencing. It was thought
that changes to commissioning would only happen slowly, as existing
contracts… [come]…up for renewal".
2.2 Secondly the contract length (the CLG
pilot findings show that some 68% of contracts were longer than
one year) will mean that a number of authorities may not yet have
engaged in reconsidering the balance of services and thus the
relative allocation of funding. However, when the next spending
round is announced (as part of the CSR) it is likely that a poor
allocation will lead to significant review of existing services.
For instance a recent survey showed that "one in seven
councils has reported a squeeze on adult social care budgets because
of the recession".[6]
In fact a poor settlement for supported housing would probably
have a far more deleterious impact than would the removal of the
ring-fence.
2.3 Finally, while the ring-fence has been
removed the programme remains as a named entity. It is only when
it is amalgamated into the ABG and is seen as a proportion of
a larger pot (rather than as a specific grant) that the full implications
may be realised. We would therefore recommend that the impact
of the removal of the ring-fence also be assessed at a period
of 12 to 18 months.
Potential Future Impact?
Potential Impact 1: "Top-Slicing"
2.4 The SP programme was created to ensure
that those who are most vulnerable receive help even though local
authorities did not have a statutory requirement to do so. The
ring-fencing of this funding was therefore vital to ensure that
the substantial funding allocated was used only to support those
who most needed it and was not "top-sliced" or re-allocated
for alternative purposes.
2.5 Without the ring-fence there is a real
danger that some authorities will use the substantial SP funding
to address fiscal shortfalls in other services, particularly those
related to statutory or "more strategically relevant"
(in view of the borough) services. For example, nearly three-quarters
of councils have adopted a "substantial" or "critical"
threshold for FACS compared to "just" 62% in 2006-07.
This is obviously an even more pressing issue given the public
spending deficits and the "difficult" settlement which
will be given to local authorities by the next CSR. For instance,
the LGA estimated that "…growth in public spending
will fall from 2.1 per cent to 0.7 per cent in real
terms from 2011-12 to 2014".[7]
Potential Impact 2: "National Indicators"
2.6 Many local authorities appear to be
of the opinion that one of the important roles for the ABG is
to resource activities which will help deliver against the selected
LAA indicators. The problem for supported housing is that the
two indicators which most closely relate to the work it does (NI
141 and NI 142) have been chosen by comparatively few local
authorities. For example, only 28% of our authorities have chosen
NI 141 while only 12% have selected NI 142.
2.7 If the funding from the ABG is used
to commission services which aim to address the chosen national
indicators, the absence of directly related SP indicators or even
a lack of indicators (whether directly or indirectly) to which
some services could realistically contribute would suggest that
the continuing strategic relevance is in question.
2.8 The likelihood of this issue obviously
depends upon the authority and the extent to which they consider
that SP services are helping to address a particularly relevant
issue. It also though depends upon how well providers are able
to articulate the fact that supported housing contributes to a
range of indicators and no just those related directly to housing
or increased independence.
Potential Impact 3: "Affecting Needs Related
Commissioning"
2.9 As earlier noted (1.4-1.6), though we
may not always have agreed with a council's assessment of needs,
one of the beneficial elements of SP is the broadly technocratic
and specialised nature of commissioning. Once SP funding is transferred
into the ABG it could lead to a system which is less technocratic
and needs related.
2.10 Once SP funding is subsumed into the
ABG it would cease to exist as a programme. As a result, we would
expect commissioning of supported housing to become the preserve
of a larger council department who by virtue of having responsibility
for a range of areas will not be able to give supported housing
the focus or specific expertise it currently enjoys.
2.11 In addition as funding comes from a
source closely linked to LAA's and LSP's, it is possible that
different stakeholders will bring to bear different view points
and interests and that this in turn will affect the level of objectivity
in needs based commissioning. For example, some decision makers
may identify with certain groups and as such would support more
help for them irrespective of the actual needs. If this does happen
it could lead to falls in services for certain challenging groups
which could cause severe problems.
Potential Impact 4: "Quality Monitoring"
2.12 The core aim of the SP team is to oversee
the quality of the services provided (this is usually assessed
via the QAF). However, once the SP team ceases and commissioning
and monitoring moves into the realm of a larger department with
more responsibilities, the extent to which they can devote time
to monitoring quality will surely reduce. For instance a survey
by Homelesslink "Experiences of Commissioning"[8]
found that just less than 70% of providers felt that they had
seen an increased focus on price rather than quality.
2.13 The other key issue which will inevitably
impact on quality monitoring relates to the possible changes to
the nature of services commissioned. Once the grant has gone and
the funding is amalgamated, authorities can commission different
types of services which may not previously have been allowed under
the "tight" conditions of SP. If the sort of services
which are providers span more diverse policy domains than at present,
there is the potential that existing practices within the new
domain will not readily fit with the quality culture in SP and
will lead to some compromise in rigorousness.
Potential Impact 5: "More Flexible Supported
Conditions"
2.14 As noted above (2.13) there were a
number of conditions which dictate and prescribe the way in which
supported housing could work. However, one of the criticisms has
been that the grant conditions precluded funding activities or
services which, though not strictly housing related support, would
certainly contribute to stable and independent tenancy.
2.15 Moreover research by the JRF demonstrated
that "the Government has declined to issue authoritative
guidance on how 'housing-related support' should be defined and
this has led to wide variations in operational definitions at
local level".[9]
2.16 By removing the ring fence and the
grant as a whole there is the possibility that the authority will
be able to start commissioning services which extend past the
existing conditions. This could have the effect of driving innovative
new services and leading to a more integrative approach to support.
In particular it might allow for services for those individuals
who need to combine supported housing and personal care. Furthermore,
by allowing flexible conditions it eliminates the potential issues
arising from local variation.
2.17 If commissioners do take this opportunity
it will require organisations like ourselves to review whether
there is a need to reconfigure the way in which we operate. However,
the potential caution is that any radical new services need be
commissioned in partnership with the sector so as to ensure that
demands (on providers) are sustainable and that these new services
take account of the needs of the area.
3. Measures to Address the Negative Impacts
of Removing the Ring-Fence?
The Government's Transition Package
3.1 As part of the transition package before
the fund is amalgamated into the ABG, the Government announced
a set of measures to ensure that the benefits of SP were not lost.
Yet, while providers supported the announcement many of the measures
have not, from a London based provider perspective, delivered
as they should do.
3.2 Firstly the CLG outlined a commitment
to "deliver a new financial modelling tool which will
provide evidence at a local level on the financial benefits of
investment in housing support".[10]
While this would be useful in helping to make a case for supported
housing, there has since December been little indication of when
this will be. Given that it was not to be commissioned until December
and that there were some areas of the original Capgemini methodology
that needed to be "strengthened", it does not appear
that the modeling will be available in the immediate future. This
has implications because many contracts and spending decisions
for the forthcoming future will already be underway at present.
While the tool is clearly not the only "peg" to hang
the benefits of supported housing on it would have been a useful
mechanism for helping to make the case.
3.3 The second transition measure was "guidance…
on integrating housing related support across health, social care
and housing at a regional level".[11]
This is a useful and interesting document and clearly has much
applicability for many of the regions. The problem is that London
does not tend to operate as a single region; rather it can be
said to work as a set of independently governed areas. This makes
this document much less useful than if it were applied to the
South East or elsewhere.
3.4 Another commitment was that there would
be "ongoing support from the Communities and Local Government
Regional Resource Teams to support local performance improvement".
While this is a potentially useful resource, at the time of writing
there was no such regional team for the London.
Look Ahead's Suggested Measures
Measure 1: Require Local Authorities to "formally
explain" any decision not to match spending on supported
housing against the most recent local needs assessment.
3.5 Two of the key potential issues with
the removal of the ring fence are the threat of top slicing, and
concerns in relation to ensuring that commissioning matches needs.
By requiring local authorities to "formally explain"
their spending decisions, it will better allow key stakeholders
to challenge those occasions when they do not resource in line
with the needs assessment. This should not only help make "top
slicing" and non objective commissioning less prevalent but
it could also have the benefit of encouraging a more thorough,
regular and comprehensive needs assessment.
Measure 2: CLG to monitor and review the extent
to which service provision matches the needs of those who are
most vulnerable
3.6 Linking in with the measure above, it
is important that the CLG is aware of and takes steps to ensure
that no particular groups of vulnerable people lose out as a result
of any changes in governance, funding or commissioning priorities.
By undertaking a formal study the Government will be able to ascertain
whether this has been the case and can take appropriate action
as is necessary.
Measure 3: Make National Indicator 141 and
142 a mandatory LAA indicator
3.7 There was a clear decision that SP was
not to be put on a statutory footing. However, given the relatively
poor take up of the most closely associated supported housing
national indicators, there is a real concern that the funding
once integrated in the ABG will be directed elsewhere.
3.8 If the CLG included NI 141 and
142 alongside the 17 indicators which every authority
had to have (this could be done as part of second year re-fresh),
it would help ensure that they were given sufficient attention
and thus that they receive an appropriate allocation of funding
and capacity.
3.9 It might also be useful to ensure that
achievement against these national indicators is given the necessary
reflection within the local performance framework (ie CAA).
Measure 4: Develop new commissioning guidance
to ensure that service quality is a key determinant of a successful
tender
3.10 One of the possible issues of the loss
of SP is that service quality will be affected (2.12 and
2.13). By having commissioning guidance which encourages authorities
to give substantive weight to service quality it will help ensure
that providers place importance on service improvement. Moreover,
it should ensure that meeting and maintain high standards are
embedded within the everyday work of those providing housing support.
Measure 5: A package of tools to support the case
for housing related support
3.11 The Government has committed to developing
a more localised version of the monetary analysis done by Capgemini.
We would however like to see further information and tools and
suggestions with regards to making the case, and in particular
with relation to influencing members, senior council officers
and members of an LSP.
3.21 This could include more accessible
research, guidance for better marketing and greater opportunities
for showcasing good practice. We would like to see this information
developed in a partnership between the CLG, providers and commissioners.
May 2009
1 http://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/BF683D3D-32AB-4D66-822E-62D84CDEAAFA/14494/ResearchintothefinancialbenefitsoftheSPProgramme.pdf Back
2
http://www.lookahead.org.uk/default.aspx?CATID=6336 Back
3
http://www.bexley.gov.uk/service/housing/supportingpeople/pdfs/Using_The_QAF.pdf Back
4
http://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/BF683D3D-32AB-4D66-822E-62D84CDEAAFA/14494/ResearchintothefinancialbenefitsoftheSPProgramme.pdf Back
5
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/supportingpeoplefunding.pdf Back
6
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/04/24/111370/adass-reports-tighter-budget-controls-as-downturn-bites.html Back
7
http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=1836068 Back
8
http://www.homeless.org.uk/developyourservice/topics/Commissioning Back
9
http://www.jrf.org.uk/node/2646 Back
10
http://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4E3399E3-9262-43FE-A679-980B7DF90EA9/16043/081212TransitionPackage.doc Back
11
http://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4E3399E3-9262-43FE-A679-980B7DF90EA9/16043/081212TransitionPackage.doc Back
| 
