Memorandum from Casa Support (SPP 42)
Thank you for the opportunity to respond and
offer our opinion on the SP programme; I am responding on behalf
of Casa Support. Casa Support, the supported housing arm of AmicusHorizon,
is a care and support provider. Based in the South East of England,
Casa Support provide Supporting People funded services to over
2,500 vulnerable people including families affected by domestic
abuse, people with long term mental health issues, young people
and those affected by homelessness.
In summary—from the experience of Casa
Support the Supporting People programme has proved of significant
benefit to a wide range of people who are in some way vulnerable.
Such people often fail to meet the threshold for receipt of other
forms of support or care but without housing related support may
eventually gravitate towards that threshold experiencing distress
and hardship in the process and ultimately consuming a greater
level of resource from statutory services.
Casa Support has concerns in respect of the
inclusion of Supporting People grant in Area Based Grants and
consider that some element of ring fencing needs to be continued.
Specific comments from Casa Support are as follows:
1. Casa Support feel there is clear evidence
that the programme has benefited many people throughout the country
and continues to do so. There has always been a strong emphasis
on customer involvement and providers have been encouraged to
be innovative through a number of innovation and good practice
grants, as well as their own organisations commitment to service
users which has been as part of the wider housing sector for a
number of years. The body of knowledge and experience built up
over many years in the sector has helped to inform the strategy
for the many administering authorities within which Casa Support
provides services. We believe the programme will continue to show
not just benefits to the individual, but also to other communities
via partnership working, encouraging choice and aspiration for
many of the most socially excluded and disadvantaged groups in
our society.
2. We believe that the removal of the ring fence
within the Area based grant system may be a real risk to the programme
and therefore vulnerable people, if the strategic and regulatory
aspects of administrating the programme are diluted. The SP programme
brought many challenges to the sector, but it is our opinion that
these challenges have benefited service users and made the sector
accountable and outcome focused. To reduce this element would,
we feel, represent an unacceptable risk to vulnerable people who
are not protected by statutory obligations. In addition, driven
by demographic and social changes the demand for housing related
support can be expected to grow and again the removal of the ring
fence may result in a growing level of unmet need, the type which
without the provision of low level support can escalate to more
needy and serious situations.
3. We believe that the governance structures
of the programme, for example within Kent, should be maintained
this includes the Commissioning body, CSDG and Provider forums.
Without these structures the programme may be subsumed into the
existing housing and social care structures, thereby risking the
loss of much needed specialist knowledge and experience and indeed
the voice of the service user.
4. We feel that the administrating authority
should maintain use of the QAF and the measurement of outcomes.
We see little point in reducing the accountability of providers
and the SP team. Demand for services is increasing and the protection
of vulnerable people is of paramount importance and accordingly
we believe that clear accountable and robust structures need to
be in place.
5. As mentioned above the programme has in our
view, led to a number of innovations in service user involvement.
The partnership with the statutory, Third and RSL sectors has
combined a body of knowledge that in our opinion is at the forefront
of service user involvement. However, providers are committed
to improving this vital activity and we are also keen to embrace
the personalisation agenda. Providers have a number of service
user involvement strategies that in our view both compliment and
offer real choice to service users and their families and carers.
We are however, fearful that a dilution of the SP programme will
potentially destroy the motivation to continue to prioritise this
work.
6. The removal of the eligibility criteria is
perceived both as a risk and an opportunity. The removal in some
of the pilot areas has, it would appear, allowed a much greater
degree of freedom to deliver services in partnership with health
and other agencies both statutory and non statutory. However,
we are somewhat concerned that a removal per se, would put at
risk much needed services that offer protection and a way out
of poverty, addictions and homelessness for thousands of vulnerable
people who fall short of social services thresholds and to whom
local authorities have no statutory duty towards. In such circumstances
people with a low level of need would be in danger, due to the
absence of an appropriate support service, of their level of need
escalating.
7. The issue of local connection has been problematic
for a number of reasons. The SP grant conditions have enabled
non priority homeless people to seek help and indeed escape from
damaging and dangerous lifestyles. Should strict local connection
policies be implemented for SP funded services especially direct
access hostels there will be increased hardship and in the worst
cases, danger to peoples lives.
8. We believe that the SP programme has facilitated
a much needed debate in relation to supported housing both nationally
and regionally. However, it is also our view that these structures
need to be strengthened and more focused in some areas, particularly
strategy and partnership working. In order to achieve this we
believe that these structures must remain in place to address
the needs of vulnerable service users and also to ensure that
supported housing and housing related support services remain
on both the national and regional agenda.
9. In order for the SP programme to continue
to play a vital role in the overall social policy agenda the programme
must be maintained as an integral part of the strategic and decision
making bodies that currently exist. To reduce the influence and
voice of the programme would in our opinion, be a betrayal of
the faith put into SP by providers and service users from its
very inception. We as providers acknowledge that difficult decisions
need to be made, especially in a recessionary climate. However,
the most vulnerable in our society need, and in our view are owed,
a moral duty of care by politicians and the agencies that provide
services. We therefore hope and trust that services will be protected
and sector stabilisation will remain a central theme of the programme
into the future.
10. There are still questions to consider about
the appropriateness of support to tenants in sheltered housing
being funded by SP grant and it is suggested that this should
be considered as part of a wider review of the housing and support
needs of older people.
To conclude I have attached two cases studies
of people that have received Supporting People funded services
from Casa Support. These studies demonstrate the vital role that
the Supporting People programme has played in assisting vulnerable
people in turning their lives around and the opportunities that
it has now given them. Should as part of your review you wish
to visit any of Casa Support's services we would of course be
very happy to arrange this.
Once again thank you for giving us this important
opportunity to state our case for the continued safeguarding of
vital resources and services.
|
