Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60
- 78)
MONDAY 8 JUNE 2009
MR MIKE
SHORT, MR
PETE CHALLIS
AND MR
ANDREW VAN
DOORN
Q60 Chair: This is increased numbers
receiving support.
Mr Challis: Yes.
Q61 David Wright: The Audit Commission
have said in relation to the Third Sector that "The evidence
from inspection is mixed. There area concerns, drawn from interviews
in the third sector that their contribution is not recognised
and we have found evidence of this in the level of involvement
afforded to third sector providers in commissioning bodies and
partnership working." What is your impression of the involvement
of the Third Sector in this whole area of work? How effective
is it? Could it be improved?
Mr van Doorn: I agree with the
Audit Commission's analysis of it. I think it can be improved.
It is worth remembering that of the £1.55 billion a billion
of that goes into the Third Sector. So it is by far the largest
provider within the Supporting People framework and the evidence
is mixed. In some areas there is some really excellent work going
on; commissioners are very linked into the Third Sector, they
take proactive approaches to build their capacity to involve them
in service design and delivery and strategy making. They also
involve service users in the role that the Third Sector can play
in helping support the service users to raise their voices. In
other areas the picture is not so rosy and really does need to
be improved.
Mr Short: I would agree with that.
The Third Sector has done some good work training public sector
commissioners and using the Third Sector more appropriately. I
was involved in some of that training as well. Some of the things
that I heard some commissioners say on that training were quite
profoundly worrying actually. At one point there was a question
from the speaker: "Why do we use the Third Sector?"
and a guy sitting on my table said, "They're just cheaper,
aren't they?" I thought he was joking but he was not. This
is a real worry because I thought it was the aim of government
to use the Third Sector because it brings a different approach
to services (innovation links to local communities which have
been referred to by previous groups of people this afternoon)
but these things are not always cheap. Sometimes they might be
but sometimes they cost money. I think there is insufficient recognition
of that from commissioners, but it is not just individual commissioners,
there is a problem with the system itself where you tender out
service and as long as organisations can meet a certain minimum
standard they are in the game; whichever organisation does it
cheaper gets the Supporting People funding. That is often how
it works anyway. The result there is that the organisation does
not really have any incentive to go the extra mile and do those
innovatory things which is why they are being involved in the
process in the first place. There is certainly insufficient recognition
for the kinds of things they can bring to the table.
Mr van Doorn: Could I add to that
in terms of the Office of the Third Sector that the interesting
thing about the piece of work they were doing about building capacity
of commissioners is that Supporting People commissioners were
notable by their absence.
Q62 Emily Thornberry: Is competitive
tendering for Supporting People contracts the right way forward?
Mr Short: On its own, the way
it is done at the moment, no.
Q63 Chair: How should it be different?
Mr Short: To go back to my answer
a minute ago I can expand on that a bit more. Clearly our view
is that the process of tendering means that commissioners are
not getting the benefit that these Third Sector organisations
can bring and that their workforce can bring. We have brought
some practitioners with us today and I am sure they would be very
interested in this and would agree with me. In terms of the question
"How should it be different?" the Public Administration
Select Committee did some work on this a while ago and they used
the phrase "intelligent commissioning". Clearly these
organisations are not just service providers; they should not
just be used as service providers. If we are going to use their
community links, for example, they need to be involved at an early
stage working in partnership with local authorities so that their
knowledge of different groups in the community can be brought
into the way the service looks before it is tendered rather than
the authority on its own—the commissioner on their own—just
starting up and saying, "What kind of service do we want?
This is what we want" and then seeing who can do it the cheapest.
There are a lot of Third Sector organisations that specialise
in one form of quality or another and those specialisms are disappearing.
You saw the Ujima Housing Association, specialists in BME issues
in London, having to be swallowed up by London and Quadrant. I
am not criticising London and Quadrant but I am sure you are not
getting the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) specialisms that Ujima
used to bring in those circumstances.
Q64 Emily Thornberry: How would you
ensure that quality does not deteriorate if we continue to use
competitive tendering?
Mr Challis: I think there is a
big issue about what we are seeing in the tendering process at
the moment and the evidence you have in front of you from a number
of providers. We have evidence of pay and conditions being changed
and deteriorating. In the recent pay rounds we have had some housing
associations offering, say, three per cent to their housing management
staff but only offering one per cent to their care staff. Obviously
they are predominantly women. We think there are some real issues
about quality of service linked to terms and conditions. The government,
in its best value guidance, recognises that. There is no code
of practice in relation to two-tier workforce that applies to
this sector. There is a code of practice that applies to local
government; there is a code of practice that applies to the wider
public sector. There is no code of practice on workforce matters
that applies to the housing association sector and those involved
in Supporting People. We have recently made a submission to the
Tenants Services Authority suggesting to them that as part of
establishing the new framework for standards in that sector they
should adopt something that is in effect equivalent to the codes
that already operate within local authorities and in the wider
public sector for this sector to ensure that service quality is
maintained where the services are being transferred between organisations.
Q65 Chair: Mr van Doorn, do you want
to come in on this?
Mr van Doorn: We worry greatly
about how this applies to small local organisations in competitive
tendering and there are a lot of issues there about how well they
have the capacity to engage in that. When they do have capacity
they can engage, it is not that they are not able to. I think
what we worry most about is where you have really good small organisations
and where competitive tendering does end up being a result where
they are pushed out of the market, there is a loss of the social
capital in those organisations that has been accumulated over
many, many years. A lot of supported housing and housing support
came from Third Sector organisations identifying the needs in
their local areas and creating services to do that, and also through
voluntary effort. Once that social capital is lost it is not easily
replaced. I think we should be worried about those kinds of things.
The other issue that we have looked at is where full competitive
tendering appears to be driven by narrow focus on anticipated
savings and cost rather than looking at the full value of going
through the tendering exercise. In one area where we supported
a consortium to come forward we looked at how much the organisations
involved in bidding spent—not just in the consortium but
the others—and it is about £100,000 that is being spent
on one tendering exercise. Given that the vast majority of organisations
in this arena are Third Sector organisations that is £100,000
in that area coming out of the Third Sector that could be better
used to support vulnerable and marginalised people in their communities.
Q66 Emily Thornberry: Whose job is
it to support the Third Sector organisations to compete in the
market?
Mr van Doorn: I think there are
a number of players who can be there to support Third Sector organisations.
The specialist infrastructures such as Sitra, the National Housing
Federation and local organisations such as Space East and ROCC
can play a role in supporting them; and Hact we have played a
role as well in testing models and producing resources. I would
also say that commissioners have a key role in this as well. Where
you have commissioners who want to see a Third Sector thrive,
where you see them wanting to see consortium and partnership bids
come together and they put in the time and the energy and have
creative ideas to do that, things can work really well. Where
you have commissioners who are indifferent often a consortium
does not look attractive and it will not win a tender. I also
think there is a role for the more generic infrastructure within
the voluntary sector to take a better engagement with Supporting
People services. It is fair to say that the resources going through
Capacitybuilders, through Futurebuilders and the army of capacity
builders from the generic sector has not necessarily impacted
on Supporting People services and there has been a kind of separate
path being followed around this policy agenda than the wider Third
Sector debates that are going on.
Mr Short: I would agree with that
but I would just add that it is not the public sector's responsibility
to support the voluntary sector just for the sake of it because
that would defeat the purpose of it, but if commissioners wish
to get the best out of the voluntary sector and if they are saying
"This is what the Third Sector can do that we cannot do"
then they have to make sure the investment and the capacity building
are there to make sure it can do that, rather than the current
process which is actually reducing the Third Sector's ability
to do precisely those things the commissioners want it to do.
Q67 Emily Thornberry: Do you think
we should be going down the path of alternatives to competitive
tendering?
Mr Short: Yes.
Q68 Emily Thornberry: What do you
think we should do instead?
Mr Short: It is not that we are
against competition per se, it is more that at the moment,
as I understand it, competitive tendering is about who can do
it cheapest and that on its own is not enough. There has to be
something about the quality of the service and there has to be
something about who is involved in designing the service as well.
Q69 Sir Paul Beresford: I do not
know very much about competitive tendering but I would have thought
that the normal arrangement would be a two-stage tendering so
that the first stage is actually going out there and looking at
who is there and what they have to offer, then building your second
tender on that, bearing in mind that quality of service is one
of the priorities and not necessarily the lowest price.
Mr Short: I refer slightly back
to the point I made before. Our members' experience is that there
is that two-stage process but the bits about quality have a fairly
low level so a bunch of organisations are able to meet that standard
and then the second stage is about the cheapest out of those organisations,
the result being that there is not much incentive to try things
in different ways. I would not see quality as one organisation
being better, there is also something that Third Sector organisations
themselves would say, we do things in different ways; it is not
just good and bad.
Q70 Sir Paul Beresford: That is where
the first bit should be applied—look at what can be applied,
what is on offer, different ideas—and then build the contract
for your second bit.
Mr Short: Our members' experience
is that that is not really happening.
Q71 Chair: Are you saying that in
some cases it does happen or are you saying it never happens?
Mr Short: I am not saying it never
happens.
Mr Challis: There is a growing
trend, partly because of the way in which the Supporting People
programme has been initially established in that we are now reaching
a period where six years down the line the original teething problems
of establishing the programmes, setting things in place, letting
initial contracts and so on. I think you heard from the evidence
you had from other contributors today that some authorities have
been postponing decisions because they want to undertake reviews
which shows you the extent to which the system has not bedded
down yet, but as things progress and with the efficiency demands
that are being made on local government, the figures for 2004-05
show that local authorities were reporting efficiency projections
of £22 million by 2007-08, that had risen to £149 million
and there is an additional half billion being part of the April
2009 budget. Those pressures are going to accelerate that pace.
Q72 John Cummings: In a nutshell,
having heard what you have said and the reservations that you
have expressed, do you believe that the personalisation agenda
is good news for housing related support?
Mr van Doorn: I think it is good
news for housing related support and that is because one of the
main pillars of the personalisation agenda is around prevention
and early intervention. That is one of the main things that housing
related support can deliver and has proved it can deliver as well.
I hear people talking about the cost savings that can be delivered
through the programme. Also the personalisation agenda is about
putting the user at the heart of everything that we do and I think
that Supporting People has tried to do that. It has worked well
in some places and not so well in others, but I think that agenda
is actually a positive thing for housing related support. My final
thing to say on this is that a lot of innovation has come out
from Supporting People providers and they have been innovating
for decades around how to meet new needs as they emerge in the
community. I think that the personalisation agenda requires us
all to really think about how we are innovating the way in which
we do things. I think the Third Sector has a huge amount to offer;
this is the largest funding programme government puts through
to the Third Sector and I think if the resources are used wisely
then we can see some really imaginative and creative solutions
coming forward that means that people will be able to get a better
deal living in their communities.
Mr Challis: I think the concept
behind people being able to get the services that they need as
opposed to services that other people decide they need is entirely
right. What I am not persuaded by is that the employment issues
that relate to the personalisation agenda have been fully thought
through. We are asking people to potentially become employers.
What are the pay and conditions going to be? What are the pension
arrangements? There is a whole set of employment issues that relate
to the personalisation agenda that we, as the largest public sector
trade union, are not satisfied that the answers are there. There
are a whole range of groups who will have enormous difficulties
in being employers. We heard of the issues in relation to homeless
people, people with dementia. It becomes an added pressure on
people to take on a whole range of employment issues that are
associated with the personalisation agenda.
Mr van Doorn: I disagree slightly
with what you said. I think you are right to raise the issues
and we have to have good debates and conversations around what
personalisation actually means, but I think there is a risk in
this agenda that we always think that personalisation means individual
budgets or people being their own employers. I think there are
a whole range of different agendas within personalisation that
we need to look at—the growth of social capital, the prevention
and early intervention agenda—and I think there is a wide
debate to be had around how well personalisation will be implemented
in communities and the benefits it could have for vulnerable and
marginalised people. I think we are right to have the conversations
you want to have but let us not lose sight of the wider agenda
that personalisation brings.
Q73 John Cummings: What practical
experience do you have of the impact of the personalisation agenda
on users and providers?
Mr van Doorn: I have some personal
experience of people I know who are social care users and who
are in receipt of direct payments and in receipt of individual
budgets. If they were sitting here with me today they would be
singing the praises of the ability for them to be much more in
control of their lives. I think it is too early to bring evidence
to the table about how this would pan out because we are at the
very early stages of the programme. However, I also understand
that there are a lot of challenges and risks within this programme
as well. Overall I am feeling positive towards the programme because
I think it can deliver a much better deal for vulnerable and marginalised
people.
Q74 Anne Main: Going back to something
you said before, I am sure we have all had experiences where people
have said, "I don't actually want this personalisation programme;
it does put far too much burden on me and I would rather you consult
with me about what we are going to do. Don't do things to me but
I don't want to have all the organisational hoo-hah that surrounds
this." Do you think we should be having a multi-faceted approach
where people can say, "I wish to opt out of that burden of
the employment issues surrounding any organisational issues"?
Mr van Doorn: Yes I do. As you
say, there are people out there who have said, "I don't necessarily
want to do this" and there might be generations coming through
who might have a very different perspective. I think the agenda
needs to be responsive to what individuals want. That is a real
challenge for everybody.
Q75 Anne Main: Do you think it is
responsive at the moment? I do not have experience that it is
at the moment. Is it suitably responsive enough for those people
who—
Mr van Doorn: I think local authorities
across the country are struggling with how they deliver their
personalisation agenda. It is emerging differently in different
places. I think there are some places where those conversations
are going on and there is a response that is adequate and appropriate.
I think in others they are going very quickly down this road and
they are finding that perhaps they are not going to able to deliver
that. What you said is exactly right, personalisation is about
people and what they want.
Mr Short: A lot of Third Sector
organisations that I work with seem to be moving in the direction
of setting themselves up to do exactly that, to be that sort of
halfway house for the individuals who do not want the micro-choice,
if you like, of setting themselves up as brokers of individual
service providers. At the same time these organisations are looking
to broaden the scope of the kinds of things they work in. So a
mental health organisation is also looking towards learning disabilities
and drug abuse, those sorts of things. In many ways that is a
rational response to the challenges but this brings its own concerns
for us as well because if they see themselves as brokers the employment
becomes a lot less stable. I think as well you run the risk of
there being much less continuity of service provision so, for
example, the individual who does not want the choice over every
little thing probably would want some continuity in service; the
service provider gets to know him and they are comfortable with
each other. If employers become brokers it is going to be a lot
less likely that that will happen.
Q76 David Wright: Can I just mention
floating support within that context? We had a discussion earlier
about the increasing use of floating support as a tool in this
arena and I think in some of the written material you have provided
there is some concern that we are moving towards a very generic
model for floating support and that we will lose some of that
specific detailed individually personalised support. You seemed
to be alluding to that not just in the sort of general theme that
you were talking about earlier but in a specific structure of
floating support.
Mr Challis: A good example of
that would be in older people's services where the numbers receiving
support through the Supporting People programme has fallen from
over 900,000 to just over 800,000 and you have a significant change
in the way in which services are delivered with the loss in many
places of warden services, a shift from warden services to remote
alarms which may simply alert the emergency services. If you had
added a floating support service to an existing warden service
you would have provided a better service for the group of elderly
people or other vulnerable people who needed that support within
that area using the sheltered housing provision as the base. Replacing
the sheltered housing warden service with a floating support service
moves to a completely different model and quite often people are
not and have not been given the ability to properly influence
those changes in services. Often people have moved into sheltered
accommodation because they are willing to give up perhaps a larger
property but knowing and on the understanding that they are going
to get continued support through the warden service and then that
disappears.
Q77 Chair: Mr van Doorn, in your
memorandum you pointed to an area of weakness in delivery of the
strategy being the real empowerment of service users in the design,
delivery and monitoring of the strategy.
Mr van Doorn: Yes. I think this
is a good example of where the voices of users have not necessarily
been heard well enough. I think that Supporting People has done
better at bringing the voices of service users to a whole range
of different tables but I would not want them to rest on their
laurels because actually there is a lot more that could go on.
I think with the floating support for older people it is a dilemma
in some respects because one thing that floating support has been
able to do is actually move support out of the social housing
sector into the owner/occupier and private rented sector and when
local authorities have thought, "How do we make sure that
the resources we have that are limited actually reach the most
number of people?" and some of the decisions that are being
taken are challenging the traditional social housing models. I
would also add that with generic floating support generic does
not mean low skill and in some respects for me a generic floating
support scheme should be very high skill and high expertise. That
means that the right kinds of resources need to be invested into
the training and development of staff and in hard times it is
often the first thing that goes. We need to look very carefully
at that. The final thing I would say is that we have to be clear
that the evidence base about all the different models that we
talk about within supported housing is not that clear. We do not
really know what works and why it works; we do not know which
models of intervention work better than others and why they work
with specific client groups and not others. We really do need
to invest in that evidence base so that providers and commissioners
can make the right kind of decisions about how to meet the needs
that exist in our communities.
Q78 Chair: Who should be doing that
research or that evaluation?
Mr van Doorn: I think that should
come from a whole range of different areas. There is a role for
the research councils, I think there is a role for government
in investing in it and I think there is a role for providers and
provider representative bodies to be spearheading that as well
so that no one individual has responsibility but there are some
significant gaps in our evidence base and that is one of them.
Chair: Thank you all very much.
| 
