Annex D
PATHFINDERS
1. Following the first meeting of the governmental
working group that oversaw the testing process (which included
colleagues from CLG, local government and HMT), it was agreed
that the number of authorities to be included would be as small
as possible, whilst ensuring that each of the following factors
could be considered:
— High/low performers (taking into account
how recently the Audit Commission inspected the local authority);
— Individual Budget/Value Improvement Pilot
sites;
2. Following discussion with Government
Office colleagues we identified the list of authorities that became
the pathfinders (pilots). From April 2008 CLG worked with
the 15 Pathfinder authorities and other stakeholders to gather
evidence about the impact the removal of the ringfence has made
in the pilot areas.
3. We have also explored the issue more
widely, talking to providers and their representative bodies,
service users, non-Pathfinder authorities, the LGA and ADASS,
colleagues across Whitehall and in the devolved administrations
and the Audit Commission, as well as analysing relevant data sources
4. CLG met regularly with a learning network
made up of SP lead officers and central finance/LAA leads from
the Pathfinder authorities, along with the locality lead officers
from the Government Offices. Discussions included issues relating
to governance, commissioning processes, delivering better outcomes
through innovation and gathering the views of service users
5. One of the key messages from the group
was the importance of having a clear decision and route-map for
the future delivery of funding. Whilst the group raised early
concerns about how much change the project would be able to measure
in the short amount of time available, they have also stressed
the importance of having a clear decision in 2008. They argued
that this would provide the certainty needed for authorities and
their provider partners to plan effectively for the future.
Innovative projects
6. The pathfinders stressed the benefits
gained from a better mainstream understanding of housing support
and the potential offered by the innovative projects that they
had been able to consider, with their new flexibility. The types
of innovation delivered so far have been positive, enabling the
delivery of jointly commissioned services which provide better
outcomes for service users. For example:
— Prison Transport Service—to improve
rates of ex offenders on release from prison meeting accommodation
appointments a contract for "prison to provision" is
being agreed with a local provider of offender accommodation.
— Handyperson service looking to extend
to the private sector and to close gaps where the Supporting People
programme does not cover services such as disabled children moving
to adulthood.
7. Overall, the views from the group about
the best way forward was clearly in favour of increased funding
flexibility. This represented a changed position from the beginning
of the project when many of the Network members were in favour
of keeping the ringfence.
PATHFINDERS SURVEY
OF ADMINISTERING
AUTHORITIES AND
PROVIDER PARTNERS
8. CLG commissioned the University of York
to undertake an independent survey of 400 providers in the
Pathfinder areas to gather feedback on the process and its impact.
Sampling for this survey was weighted to ensure adequate views
were gathered from providers of services for the socially excluded
and "less popular" client groups, including the PSA16 groups.
A parallel survey also gathered views from those working locally
on Supporting People, Supporting People Commissioning Body and
the Local Strategic Partnership.
The main findings from the report were that:
9. The changes that had resulted from the
removal of ring fencing in the Pathfinder areas were restricted
in scale. Contracts with many service providers often have substantial
amounts of time left to run, limiting the scope for altering commissioning
and, in any case, commissioners were largely content with their
existing mix of housing support services and did not want to radically
alter the service mix in their areas.
10. Some respondents had the view that not
enough time had elapsed for the impacts of ring fence removal
to be fully assessed.
11. The introduction of greater flexibility
in commissioning of housing support services was widely supported
and seen as generally positive.
12. Most of the concerns about the removal
of the ring fence centred on the risk of funding loss, a predictable
conclusion, but one which appeared to be causing widespread worry.
This included a concern that funding would be slowly redirected
over time and that services for some client groups would lose
a disproportionate amount of funding.
13. The other concerns that were widely
reported centred on the risk of a loss of the imperative, focus
and direction for Supporting People. In particular there was a
concern that the programme would be absorbed and then "dissolved"
within wider strategic planning and commissioning structures.
14. Although it was not a primary concern
of this research, a clear link was identified between providers'
optimism about the future of the programme and their satisfaction
with information dissemination and consultation.
Evidence from provider "focus groups"
15. To further supplement the overall findings
of the survey of providers, CLG officials held a number of smaller
focus group meetings with providers, to explore further their
concerns and the impact that changes might have in the areas within
which they operate.
16. Generally, these meetings raised the
same concerns as those captured in the survey. In addition, the
following issues were raised:
— with authorities focussed more on their
local area and LAA, those services that met a regional need would
be threatened;
— varying local priorities could mean that,
for services operating in more than one area, a decision to shift
funding in one area could have a wider impact on the services
provided and could lead to organisations closing (with the resulting
impact on the market);
— concerns that if funds are diverted away
from some of the most vulnerable client groups, services may no
longer be viable which could result in the loss of the service
and for providers to dispose of capital assets ie buildings and
related planning permission. If in the medium to long term there
was need for these services to be reinstated this could be difficult
to achieve in some locations, eg central London/city locations,
particularly where the services are required for less popular
services eg homeless hostels, refuges for sex workers; and
— a concern about a shift away from specialist
services, to more generic support that could impact on who is
able to/comfortable with accessing more mainstream support, for
example a person with HIV or Aids might not feel able to engage
with a service where the support provider does not understand
their condition or how best to manage it.
Gathering stakeholder views
17. The LGA and ADASS have reported to CLG
that they are keen to see increased flexibility in line with the
overall aim to increase local freedom to respond to local need.
18. Written submissions were received from
four provider organisations. The risks and advantages highlighted
by these groups were mainly about the diversion of Supporting
People money to fund other services, and away from less popular
client groups.
Concerns
— Stakeholders reported a perception that
most local authorities believe that the ABG is a funding stream
provided specifically to help achieve the indicators selected
for the Local Area Agreement, and therefore as SP forms a substantial
portion of the ABG (c 34% nationally), income will be used to
fund services which help to meet these indicators;
— Authorities may divert SP money to fund
services with a higher local profile or to address budget shortfalls
in other areas;
— Government is risking the sustainability
of many Third Sector organisations and services for vulnerable
people that have been demonstrated to achieve savings across many
areas of spending;
— Lifting the ringfence potentially undermines
a programme that is key to delivering central Government priorities
around PSA targets in particular those for socially excluded adults;
— Losing the grant may mean that local
authorities disband their SP team. Without a specific SP team
to dedicate time and effort to monitoring, it is likely that quality
will be compromised;
— The end of SP would change the nature
of the services commissioned as they would be no grant conditions.
Local Authorities might fail to understand the benefits of supported
housing and so will not commission it;
— Timescale was not adequate for pathfinder
authorities to explore the full range of the options available
to them and allow any major concerns to emerge, therefore the
consequences of the lifting of the ring fence remain uncertain
and the risks high.
Opportunities
— Flexibility to deliver more joined up
services to meet local needs and demands.
— Better understanding of supported housing's
impact on issues and reduce costs across a range of services:
drugs, crime prevention, community safety, community cohesion
etc.
Mitigation suggested:
— Strong guidance urging against the use
of the SP fund in ABG to fund other priorities;
— Having grant conditions in year 1 that
could be removed in subsequent years once there has been experience
of roll out for a year;
— Retaining specific funding pot for particular
groups with a focus on increasing the supply of housing for socially
excluded groups and delivering PSA16;
— Promote understanding of SP about what
it can achieve for service users;
— CLG to revisit whether SP services should
be placed on a statutory footing;
— Strengthening the importance of vulnerable
people within the CAA;
— Clear and transparent governance, administration
and accountability. Safeguards should be developed in which overarching
national standards for SP activities are maintained, and bodies
such as AC reports to government in the context of some suitably
reinforced local area agreement targets;
— CLG should firmly and clearly communicate
to local authorities that they will be closely performance measured
against all indicators so that the strategic relevance of services
is not entirely determined by inclusion in the 35 local indicators
Gathering views of service users
19. The risks and opportunities highlighted
by the service users from the Pathfinder authorities are similar
to those that were raised by other stakeholders during the Pathfinder
evaluation process (although this was a very small sample). While
there were concerns raised were about funding and potential cuts
to the level of services, and about the varying "popularity"
of some client groups, service user highlighted the opportunities
available though increased flexibility and more personal services
that are better suited to individual needs.
Change in non-Pathfinder areas that have included
SP in their LAA
20. CLG undertook an analysis of authorities
who are not Pathfinders, but have included one or both of the
housing related support indicators in their Local Area Agreement,
to help us unravel the impact of a focus in the LAA, from delivery
in a non-ringfenced setting.
21. The majority of the authorities we contacted
were revising their five-year SP strategy and commissioning decisions
to link in better with the housing related support indicators
in their LAA. However, as with the Pathfinders, the pace of change
has been slow and so it was not possible to identify whether the
LAA or increased flexibility would be the prime driver of change.
The authorities did not report that the possibility of moving
to ABG had influenced the future direction of the programme, although
reported that the increased flexibility would allow greater partnership,
improve joint commissioning and make progress on the personalisation
agenda.
Conclusion from the Pathfinder project
22. While there have been risks identified,
CLG (and many stakeholders) do not consider that these seriously
outweigh the opportunities to ensure the mainstreaming of housing
support and the delivery of better outcomes for vulnerable citizens,
through innovation and more personalised services. CLG therefore
concluded that the pilot (Pathfinders) had not yet identified
any concern that should be considered serious enough to divert
the direction of travel away from increased funding flexibility.
23. In arriving at this conclusion, we have
considered the different options for the future of the programme
and the outcomes of the Pathfinder project alongside the views
of key stakeholders on those options/outcomes. Whilst there are
arguments in favour of—and disadvantages associated with—each
of the options for the future of programme, we concluded that
the right approach was to lift the ringfence and conditions from
the Supporting People grant.
24. However the concerns raised about the
vulnerability of the client group and the high profile of any
change, mean that the decision and the transition to the new arrangements
need to be managed sensitively. As part of this management process,
we have been working with stakeholders to develop a transition
package that will help manage these concerns and support the sector
going forward. The transition package will develop to reflect
concerns and issues raised as we move forward.
25. The current contents of this package
has been steered by the lessons learnt and risks identified in
the Pathfinder evaluation. It will be further informed by the
findings of the Audit Commission national report on the successes
and lessons learnt from the Supporting People programme, based
on their SP inspections (due to report shortly) and the Regional
Round Table events and National Conferences that have already
been held.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
ELECTRONIC LINKS
Supporting People: National Report, Audit Commission,
2005.
http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/accessible.asp?ProdID=8864D8E9-48F5-4a64-9FAB-87B049E05B2E
Creating Sustainable Communities: Supporting
Independence Consultation on a Strategy for the Supporting People
Programme— November 2005
http://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FBE8BE99-051B-40F1-9E8D-0F1298DE1F73/9509/CreatingSustainableCommunitiesSupportingIndependen.pdf
Help us to Make Supporting People even better
—easy read version of the consultation on a strategy for
the Supporting People Programme
http://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4250EC4B-EEB9-4889-B5A8-2ADC7CE46393/9469/HelpustomakeSupportingPeopleevenbetterPDF530Kb_id1.pdf
Supporting people Distribution Formula—Technical
Consultation—November 2005
http://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1CB3E25B-E279-46DC-AC77-6A0E0A090370/6956/SPDFDACVersionfinal.doc
eSupporting People: Shorter Term Questions—December
2005
http://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/13EEA8B6-D12E-445D-967C-F8AE2C3A69F1/7279/eSupportingPeoplepaper121205.doc
Supporting Independence—Next steps in
our Supporting people Strategy July 2006
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/spsnextsteps.pdf
Creating Sustainable Communities: Supporting
Independence—a summary of your responses—July 2006
http://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/024F1D4C-9AD8-4842-96D7-82598EE5A005/9864/SPstrategyWayForwardDocument.pdf
How to make Supporting People work better—a
report about what you told us—Easy read version July 2006
http://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/024F1D4C-9AD8-4842-96D7-82598EE5A005/9866/Consultationeasyreadsummaryofresponses.pdf
Learning and Experiences from the Individual
Budget Pilot Sites—sharing practice from the Individual
Budget pilot sites
http://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/0571A365-248E-41E8-9955-2A94459D5CEC/16483/IB20and20SP20practice20guidance.pdf
Common Assessment Framework for Adults—a
consultation on proposals to improve information sharing around
multi-disciplinary assessment and care planning
"Reaching Out, An Action Plan for Social
Exclusion"
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/social_exclusion_task_force/assets/reaching_out/reaching_out_full.pdf
Delivering Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods—A
National strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/deliveringlifetimehomes.pdf
Collaborate the Supporting People partnerships
project
http://www.hact.org.uk/uploads/SP%20CB%20flier%20FINAL.doc
Housing, care, support: a guide to integrating
housing related support at a regional level.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/housingcaresupportguide.pdf
| 
