Memorandum from Hyde Group (SPP 37)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Hyde Group (Hyde) welcomed the introduction
of Supporting People (SP) and its evolution. We believe it has
been an extremely successful programme in extending high quality,
outcome focussed, preventative support services to a far greater
number of vulnerable people.
1.2 However, our submission highlights a
number of concerns in its delivery. These are as follows:
1.2.1The uneasy role of sheltered housing in
the Supporting People programme;
1.2.2The disincentives for landlords of supported
housing to continue to manage or develop new schemes;
1.2.3The continued attempts by commissioners
to drive down costs;
1.2.4And the wasteful procurement methods chosen
by most local authorities.
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 Supporting People has been a very effective
programme in extending the reach of support services to a wider
group of vulnerable people; in raising the quality of support
services; in empowering customers; in evidencing the efficacy
of services and in saving public money by investing in preventative
work
2.2 It has however failed to address the
differing support needs of older people and to spread funding
equably between those elders living in specialist sheltered accommodation
and in the wider community.
2.3 Supporting People has discouraged the
development of new capital supported provision as it has increased
the risk for developing housing associations and acts as a disincentive
to their commitment to existing capital provision.
2.4 We have concerns about the continued
efforts by some commissioners to drive down costs as we think
this will affect the quality of services and our ability to innovate
2.5 Hyde sees itself as having a strong
partnership with local authorities and feedback supports this
view.
2.6 We think it inevitable that some preventative
services will be lost as a result of the removal of the ring fence
and have already seen evidence to this effect, but are focussing
on the new opportunities for joint funded services
2.7 As a major provider, we are producing
more efficient and cost effective services but the bureaucracy
attached to the procurement methods chosen by most of our partner
local authorities is significant and costly.
3.0 KEEPING PEOPLE
THAT NEED
SERVICES AT
THE HEART
OF THE
PROGRAMME
3.1 The commissioning of both large scale
and smaller, specialist floating support services, funded by SP,
has enabled support services to be spread to a far wider number
of vulnerable people living in the community, regardless of tenure.
Providing services to people beyond those living in specialist
supported and sheltered accommodation remains one of the triumphs
of the Supporting People programme.
3.2 It is, however, worth noting that most
local authority's budget for older people is focussed on those
living in specific sheltered accommodation. This means that there
are numbers of people living in designated sheltered accommodation
who neither want nor need support services, whilst there are many
others, both in designated accommodation and in the community,
who need much higher levels of support. We feel strongly that
this is a poor use of scarce resources, and would welcome the
re-opening of the debate about the role of sheltered housing and
ensuring those that those older people who most need support receive
it.
3.3 We believe there is still a lack of
clarity about the role of sheltered housing. Traditionally, tenants
moved into sheltered schemes because they needed the accommodation
and valued the security of what was usually a resident "warden".
They did not necessarily need support. As a large provider of
sheltered housing, we are now under pressure from tenants and
external activists who are initiating legal action to force providers
to retain the traditional "warden" role, preferably
residential. However, as noted above, not all tenants need or
want this service and Supporting People funding is insufficient
to fund this service. Our 40 sheltered housing schemes all
run at a deficit on support funding.
3.4 One of the great successes of Supporting
People is its focus on keeping service users at the heart of the
programme. Through use of the Quality Assessment Framework and
review programme, service users are far more engaged in and consulted
on the services they receive. This has resulted in a step change
in expectations of customer involvement and control which will
also facilitate the use of Individual Budgets. It has also radically
lifted standards of support throughout the sector.
3.5 The growth of Home Improvement Agencies,
funded partly by SP, has been able to allow services to reach
a far greater number of older & disabled people living in
the community. Hyde has agencies throughout Kent, Hampshire and
in Sussex and we know from customer feedback that these services
are greatly valued. In particular, the work carried out by handy
people fitting aids and adaptations make an enormous difference
to older and disabled peoples' lives.
3.6 We have been able to evidence the efficacy
of our housing related support through the development of a bespoke
database. This enables us to analyse and report on the progress
that our service users make in key areas.
3.7 Supporting People has been extremely
effective in funding preventative services that significantly
reduce the need for more expensive and intensive interventions.
It has allowed the commissioning of large scale floating support
services throughout the country which providers like Hyde can
run with significant savings to the Supporting People pot. There
remains the need to address the issue of how Individual Budgets
will work within the context of large-scale block contracts that
have enabled significant cost savings to be made.
3.8 Some work has been done to address the
unequal spread of support provision throughout the country, particularly
of accommodation based services, although far more work is needed
on this. However, there are extreme disincentives for housing
associations to continue to develop new schemes where they are
needed.
3.9 There is no guarantee that the developing
landlord will secure the contract for support, which is contracted
separately. Developing large new supported or sheltered capital
schemes is increasingly seen by housing associations as too risky
without the guarantee of the revenue funding stream. The support
provider commissioned to deliver the service in our building which
we have had no part in appointing could be sub-standard, which
impacts both on our tenants' satisfaction and has a knock-on effect
on our housing management performance. The service could be decommissioned
leaving vulnerable tenants without support.
4.0 ENHANCING
PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE THIRD
SECTOR
4.1 "Independence and Opportunity"
rightly identifies the critical role the third sector has played
in setting up and delivering services for vulnerable people. The
ability of the third sector to continue to play this role depends
greatly on several factors; the first is the stance of the local
authority in wishing to keep a diverse provider market. Although
most express the rhetoric, we are aware that some of the commissioners
with whom we work are less keen that others to put this into action.
There is a tension that needs to be acknowledged between awarding
a tender to a "safe pair of hands"—a larger provider
with strong infrastructure which incurs a cost, and a small local
provider without that infrastructure and overheads who can produce
cheaper services.
4.2 "Independence and Opportunity"
states that there is an expectation that the commissioner should
meet "the full costs and reasonable overheads" associated
with the contract. In our experience, most commissioners meet
this obligation; however, one or two choose to haggle over our
overheads. In one case, this involved a forensic examination of
our overheads item by item and expressions of willingness to pay
for some items but not others. We have also noticed that a couple
of our local authorities have requested a Performance Bond as
a condition of tendering for new revenue business. We consider
this a retrograde step; whilst it is common when developing new
capital funded schemes, it shifts a further element of risk to
the provider for revenue funded business and we think this is
unacceptable.
4.3 As noted earlier, commissioners and
providers have been able to drive down costs of support services.
For providers like Hyde, this has been possible through securing
economies of scale on large contracts, in changing our terms and
conditions for staff and through efficiencies including mobile
working. However, there is a limit to how low costs can be driven
and we are concerned that our service quality will be adversely
affected if costs are reduced any further. We are proud of our
ability to innovate and use the small margin we achieve on services
to fund this. As margins are driven lower and lower, our ability
to innovate for the benefit of our service users will disappear.
4.4 Overall, we feel that, we play a full
role in supporting the local authorities with whom we work and
demonstrate initiative in working with local authorities on our
services to innovate and produce better outcomes for our clients.
A recent survey we commissioned from Campbell Tickell of our commissioners'
views of Hyde's support services produced exceptionally positive
responses: "Commissioners see Hyde as an innovative, problem
solving and engaged provider."
5.0 DELIVERING
IN THE
NEW LOCAL
GOVERNMENT LANDSCAPE
5.1 The majority (fifteen) of the local
authorities with whom we work have selected National Indicator
141 or 142 which relate to short and long term support
services respectively. It is clear from their choice of other
NIs that they are continuing to prioritise the major groups of
vulnerable people; people with learning disabilities, mental ill
health and so on.
5.2 It is too soon to consider the effect
of the loss of the ring fence for Supporting People. Providers'
fears, that funding for preventative work will leach into social
care budgets remain high. One of the south London boroughs with
whom we work has already begun the process and is effectively
bypassing their SP team. We are sure that this situation will
be replicated elsewhere in time. On the other hand, we work with
a number of "excellent" authorities who have already
been released from the SP ring fence and these have continued
to support and fund preventative services. As a large provider
of support, we are aware which of the different authorities with
whom we work are more able to protect their preventative services
and are more willing to fight off attempts to raid the SP budget.
Our own focus at Hyde is to explore the forthcoming opportunities
in joint commissioned services to extend services away from the
strict definitions of SP eligibility which can be restrictive
in giving our service users what they need. We know from client
feedback that more flexible services would be welcome.
6.0 INCREASING
EFFICIENCY AND
REDUCING BUREAUCRACY
6.1 Hyde was successful in winning
a large Supporting People funded floating support contract in
Essex, one of the Value Improvement Projects. We have found it
an excellent experience, marked by effective joint working and
a genuine sense of partnership which achieves the best outcomes
for service users.
6.2 Hyde is committed to increased
efficiency. We have achieved this is through the development of
IT solutions to enable mobile working, with staff using blackberries
and laptops to complete case notes for our support database. The
database enables us to evidence outcomes for both our commissioners
and for service users themselves, who can view the progress they
are making in key areas.
6.3 We believe that the bureaucracy
in tendering for new business is too overbearing. Whilst an EU
requirement, we are disappointed that our commissioners seem unwilling
to consider the wider range of procurement methods when letting
contracts. Our experience is that local authorities almost always
"play safe" and employ a full tendering exercise even
for contracts of small monetary value. In addition, where the
local authority's Procurement department drive the exercise rather
than Supporting People, the specification can be quite mystifying
as they do not understand what they want to achieve. In some cases,
this has resulted in so much bafflement by providers that the
whole tender has been withdrawn, inevitably after a significant
amount of aborted work has been carried out. At Hyde, we have
had to increase our new business team from one to four.
6.4 There are further areas where
bureaucracy could be decreased; the first is in the accreditation
exercise all providers of SP services must complete. The other
is, following the development of the refreshed QAF, one of the
local authorities with whom we work has declared it is going to
stay with the old version. This will in effect mean that we and
other providers are preparing for two different assessments. Both
of these situations could be easily remedied by a directive from
the CLG that local authorities use standard methodologies.
7.0 CONCLUSION
7.1 Hyde welcomed the introduction of Supporting
People and its evolution. We believe it has been an extremely
successful programme in extending high quality, outcome focussed,
preventative support services to a far greater number of vulnerable
people. However, our submission highlights a number of concerns
that we have in how the programme is delivered.
8.0 NOTES
8.1 The Hyde Group is one of England's largest
housing associations owning and managing more than 40,000 properties
in London and the south east.
8.2 Through a charitable subsidiary, in
touch, Hyde has £11 million+ Supporting People funded
contracts. This provides accommodation based, floating support
and Home Improvement Agency services to over 5,000 people
in a total of 18 administering authorities.
May 2009
| 
