|
Memorandum from Bournemouth SP Providers Forum (SPP 116) Alabare Christian Care Centres response 1. Do you feel that the government has shown a commitment to ensuring SP teams are providing services that promote independence and provide opportunities for all clients? Yes, I feel that the SP program has had a very possitive effect on providing services for vulnerable people. The QAF program made a significant difference in providing a benchmark for quality which has lead to an improvement in the quality of services that vulnerable people receive. 2. Do you feel in your experience that the government has been committed to the Supporting People strategy and what it aimed to provide? Financially there has been commitment to the work of the SP programme, also a good level of guidance from the CLG has assisted in improving quality. 3. With the removal of the ring fence on the Supporting people grant what do you feel needs to happen to ensure that successes so far are not lost or services are prevented from being decommissioned? I have concerns that with the removal of the ring fence there may be a diversion of money towards the statutory duties an authority would have and that those vulnerable people whose needs are insufficient to have a statutory duty miss out on the support they require. I think that while it may no longer be a ring fenced grant that at least maintaining it as a named grant and ensuring that this money is accounted for would assist in ensuring that these service users do not miss out on the support they require. 4. What opportunities do you feel there will be when the ring fence is removed in term of joint commissioning, partnership working and providing innovative services? There will be some additional opportunities to show that services are reaching targets and supporting service users outside of the two traditional KPI's. This could be a potential source of additional funding as we meet those wider targets. 5. What positives have you experienced since the SP programme has been operating? The QAF has been extremely helpful in ensuring that standards are improving. It has also enabled a more strategic and coordinated view ensuring that funding is divided equitably to the varying needs of the Authorities. 6. What negatives have you experienced since the SP programme has been operating? None 7. What other comments, observations and feedback would you like to make that have not been covered in the above questions, but you feel are important considerations for the Select Committee enquiry. 8. More importantly would you be able to provide testimonials / feedback from the clients you have worked with that have received SP funded services. Bournemouth Churches Housing Association response 1. Do you feel that the government has shown a commitment to ensuring SP teams are providing services that promote independence and provide opportunities for all clients? To some extent yes, but maybe not sufficiently. 2. Do you feel in your experience that the government has been committed to the Supporting People strategy and what it aimed to provide? Yes overall I do. 3. With the removal of the ring fence on the Supporting people grant what do you feel needs to happen to ensure that successes so far are not lost or services are prevented from being decommissioned? Need to ensure that expenditure is limited to strategically relevant services around housing and homelessness and not to subsidise other statutory responsibilities such a social / personal care etc. 4. What opportunities do you feel there will be when the ring fence is removed in term of joint commissioning, partnership working and providing innovative services? Opportunities to avoid duplications / overlaps between PCT,s / LA's / Social Services & Children & Adult Services if managed well and all parties support mutli agency commissioning on area targets rather than individual aims. 5. What positives have you experienced since the SP programme has been operating? Adequate staffing levels and hence better support leading to more successful and sustained outcomes and preventative work for people ensuring less evictions and more longer term solutions. Better able to respond to needs. 6. What negatives have you experienced since the SP programme has been operating? Variations between SP teams in different LA areas, some looking at cost and contractual issues but others looking at need and strategic relevance and value for money. Little or zero RPI increases over the past 5 years on contracts. It does now impact service levels. Poor joint commissioning initiatives and seem to be left to SP teams to promote rather than part of LAA initiatives 7. What other comments, observations and feedback would you like to make that have not been covered in the above questions, but you feel are important considerations for the Select Committee enquiry. Distribution formula will have a significant impact on services across the southern part of UK and will undo a great deal of the good work done by many providers as services are cut. It is a false economy and will impact aims to reduce rough sleeping to zero by 2012. 8. More importantly would you be able to provide testimonials / feedback from the clients you have worked with that have received SP funded services. Yes, some are on our website and also under the Big Birthday appeal section.
Beverley Williams Area Business Manager - Devon & Dorset Stonham - (The Care & Support division of Home Group)
1. Do you feel that the government has shown a commitment to ensuring SP teams are providing services that promote independence and provide opportunities for all clients? Yes I feel that through introducing the QAF staff are assisted in producing positive/effective support planning tools to assist in meeting the needs of the client and provide the basis for positive outcomes. 2. Do you feel in your experience that the government has been committed to the Supporting People strategy and what it aimed to provide? I feel the commitment to the strategy has very much come from the individual SP teams and this differs across the country. Furthermore the funding cuts have made effective services harder to deliver; therefore the strategy is clear however the funding does not always make this achievable. 3. With the removal of the ring fence on the Supporting people grant what do you feel needs to happen to ensure that successes so far are not lost or services are prevented from being decommissioned? Where positive outcomes are being achieved there needs to be SP involvement with the planning of future funding. Some SP teams have evidenced that they have a clear understanding of the needs of the area and therefore this knowledge and relationships that have been built should not be lost. Area evidence can show where SP services have helped support other strategies and this information is essential when looking at joint commissioning. 4. What opportunities do you feel there will be when the ring fence is removed in term of joint commissioning, partnership working and providing innovative services? As long as other agencies are prepared to fully understand the role of housing related support services then the future can and should be extremely positive. It will also ensure that more personalised services are provided as there is only so much that can be achieved with one stream/type of funding. 5. What positives have you experienced since the SP programme has been operating? The focus on quality and KPI monitoring has been excellent, this has ensured that clients are receiving excellent services that are always aiming to improve. It has also dealt with bed blocking (throughput) and utilisation levels, this has helped to provide a transparent view of service availability and overlap. The outcomes framework has also ensured that the clients needs are at the centre of all support toolkits which ensures we are addressing support on an individual basis 6. What negatives have you experienced since the SP programme has been operating? I do not believe that tendering existing services that have not had default on their contract and have achieved all contract KPIs is necessarily the best way to ensure the provision of effective services in the future. I have seen inconsistencies in the tendering process and also poor service provision as a result of change of provider. 7. What other comments, observations and feedback would you like to make that have not been covered in the above questions, but you feel are important considerations for the Select Committee enquiry. 8. More importantly would you be able to provide testimonials / feedback from the clients you have worked with that have received SP funded services.
Bournemouth, Dorset 1. Do you feel that the government has shown a commitment to ensuring SP teams are providing services that promote independence and provide opportunities for all clients? Yes 2. Do you feel in your experience that the government has been committed to the Supporting People strategy and what it aimed to provide? Yes 3. With the removal of the ring fence on the Supporting people grant what do you feel needs to happen to ensure that successes so far are not lost or services are prevented from being decommissioned? Provision of local commitment to continuation of services. This should have been done through the review process. So that service providers are able to continue their work unhindered 4. What opportunities do you feel there will be when the ring fence is removed in term of joint commissioning, partnership working and providing innovative services? No more than there is now 5. What positives have you experienced since the SP programme has been operating? To have watched several young people with an enduring mental health problems become valued members of the community. Happy within there own skins, with self esteem 6. What negatives have you experienced since the SP programme has been operating? The paperwork has been rather onerous. However I do realise that thatis the world we live in and we are no coping with it. 7. What other comments, observations and feedback would you like to make that have not been covered in the above questions, but you feel are important considerations for the Select Committee enquiry. Is this a back door attempt to cut our sevice back or out completely! 8. More importantly would you be able to provide testimonials / feedback from the clients you have worked with that have received SP funded services. Yes I would
Laura Wilcox Supported Living Manager 1. Do you feel that the government has shown a commitment to ensuring SP teams are providing services that promote independence and provide opportunities for all clients? Yes 2. Do you feel in your experience that the government has been committed to the Supporting People strategy and what it aimed to provide? Yes 3. With the removal of the ring fence on the Supporting people grant what do you feel needs to happen to ensure that successes so far are not lost or services are prevented from being decommissioned? Commitment from Bournemouth Borough Council to do this 4. What opportunities do you feel there will be when the ring fence is removed in term of joint commissioning, partnership working and providing innovative services? More flexibility in meeting peoples support needs 5. What positives have you experienced since the SP programme has been operating? Good monitoring of services and accountability Ensuring services are meeting the needs of people more closely 6. What negatives have you experienced since the SP programme has been operating? None 7. What other comments, observations and feedback would you like to make that have not been covered in the above questions, but you feel are important considerations for the Select Committee enquiry. 8. More importantly would you be able to provide testimonials / feedback from the clients you have worked with that have received SP funded services. If they are happy to do this
Kathie Pearce BSc FCIH ACMI Chief Executive and Secretary
Key issues for CLG inquiry into Supporting People (SP) May 2009
· The introduction of SP has been a great success and has enabled many people to live independent and fulfilling lives · Around 103,000 people receive supported housing and floating support services in the SW funded from SP, provided by around 650 different organisations (private, charitable, social enterprises and public bodies) · Research (SITRA) shows that for every £1 spent by SP, this saves £1.79 in other budgets such as Health and Probation - there must be robust impact assessment put in place which clearly identify the negative affect this will have on other areas of public expenditure and social policy, such as health, prisons, community safety, street homelessness, worklessness etc, if cuts to the SP budget are made · In Bournemouth, research (BCVS "State of the sector" 2008) demonstrates that for every £1 spent in the voluntary and charitable sector, an extra £1.32 is leveraged in at no cost to commissioners through the work of volunteers. · SP helps to create and maintain truly sustainable neighbourhoods and communities · Those enabled to live independently can then contribute to society positively · There are many case studies and positive outcomes that can produce hard evidence of this (sadly not enough time to get these to you for this timescale) · A huge amount of good practice and innovation has been achieved since SPs inception
Ring Fence · So far there has been no evidence that removing the ring fence has been detrimental - in some cases it could be seen to be positive, as it has enabled new services to develop, which are not constrained by SP grant conditions. · However with the inevitable tightening of public purse strings there is a real danger that money could be - very short-sightedly - diverted away form low-level support into "statutory" budgets such as adult care, thus undoing all the good work so far.
Sheltered Housing · These comments should be linked into Baronesses Andrew's review of sheltered housing. · Cat 2 sheltered housing remains a popular choice with older people - the reasons for low demand properties should be robustly analysed and are almost invariably due to poor condition, inappropriate design or location. It should be retained as part of a menu of options for older people and housing choice · There are persuasive arguments that actually sheltered housing should treated as an exceptional case and funded separately from SP, possibly even being put back into Housing Benefit, given the relative costs are so low and acknowledging the very clear "low cost - high value" contribution it makes and the advantages to consumers of retaining accommodation based contractual arrangements in this sector · This issue should NOT get confused with the argument to retain residential wardens - frankly this model is obsolete - what is vitally important is that the service provided give continuity and quality, thus non residential support staff for sheltered housing SHOULD be assigned to specific blocks to ensure this. · Floating support in the community can be a useful part of the above said menu, however it is not a universal panacea - many older people suffer from loneliness, isolation (leading to depression etc) and disconnection from their community - the very thing that the communal facilities of sheltered housing can offer (Fact from our own organisation - we provide for local elderly people to attend our many and varied social events and hobbies groups - invariably they then ask to join our waiting list for accommodation as they would prefer to move to our scheme to continue to live independently! · There should be national guidelines on funding for sleeping and waking night cover (essential in extra care schemes and other non sheltered housing hostel type premises) and this should ideally be funded by SP
Commissioning / Procurement · Care must be taken that overly bureaucratic systems are not put in place which deter and discriminate against smaller providers - often those who are able to deliver the most quality focussed, client led and neighbourhood aware services, and can cut across charitable objectives that state - for example - which geographical location a charity can bring relief to the poor. · Capacity building and infrastructure funds should therefore assist smaller providers · EU procurement regulations should not apply to support / welfare type contracts · It is in everyone's' interest that there is a mixed economy of providers and this is why special attention should be paid to protecting small ones in order to provide competition, local focus and the ability to "step in" when larger ones no longer want to operate "loss leader" contracts. Active Support Homes 1. Do you feel that the government has shown a commitment to ensuring SP teams are providing services that promote independence and provide opportunities for all clients? Not really; they've set up Supporting People but left LA's to implement policy in all sorts of different ways. 2. Do you feel in your experience that the government has been committed to the Supporting People strategy and what it aimed to provide? Same as above. 3. With the removal of the ring fence on the Supporting people grant what do you feel needs to happen to ensure that successes so far are not lost or services are prevented from being decommissioned? Un-ring fenced surely means LA's have more freedom. They have the targets to meet, but will it work? 4. What opportunities do you feel there will be when the ring fence is removed in term of joint commissioning, partnership working and providing innovative services? I don't think the present set-up enables innovation in the same way that allowing market forces would. What positives have you experienced since the SP programme has been operating? Positive ideas about sensible policies we might not have had. 5. What negatives have you experienced since the SP programme has been operating? Over bureaucratic, power mad Supporting People team. 6. What other comments, observations and feedback would you like to make that have not been covered in the above questions, but you feel are important considerations for the Select Committee enquiry.
7. More importantly would you be able to provide testimonials / feedback from the clients you have worked with that have received SP funded services. This surely invites positive responses rather than negative ones.
Tina Sinclair 1. Do you feel that the government has shown a commitment to ensuring SP teams are providing services that promote independence and provide opportunities for all clients? To achieve this in full SP authorities need to be consistent with each other when assessing standards, so that the service is fair to all in providing opportunities, however the introduction of the QAF standards have improved the quality of support service 2. Do you feel in your experience that the government has been committed to the Supporting People strategy and what it aimed to provide? Yes, but there has been an increase in admin work, the removing of ring fencing for supporting people funding may put the funding at risk. 3. With the removal of the ring fence on the Supporting people grant what do you feel needs to happen to ensure that successes so far are not lost or services are prevented from being decommissioned? a. We need to make sure that the importance of the preventative work being done through supporting people is given high priority and the cost of implication of not doing this will be enormous. b. The policy makers are to be alerted before decisions are made on apportioning funds. 4. What opportunities do you feel there will be when the ring fence is removed in term of joint commissioning, partnership working and providing innovative services? c. May be easier to tap into specialized services d. There may be increased opportunity to work with other agencies through joint commissioning and come up with innovative services. 5. What positives have you experienced since the SP programme has been operating? · Interaction between service user & providers has improved. · Support planning, Community Links, Accountability on good service provision. · Communication between agencies to the benefit of the service user. · Trained staff with better understanding of service users needs. · Standards improved through QAF Cont/d... 6. What negatives have you experienced since the SP programme has been operating?
e. Created paperwork, Gaps in some service provisions, not enough flexibility. Service users needs i.e. "Independency" forced upon them. f. Less flexibility for staff delivering the service especially on social activities, which in turn can lead to isolation of service users in the sheltered housing sector. g. The monitoring of services varies between different SPAA, as there are differentials in what is expected by different SP authorities.
7. What other comments, observations and feedback would you like to make that have not been covered in the above questions, but you feel are important considerations for the Select Committee enquiry.
h. SP Authorities need to take account of what the service user actually want, although their needs are a priority i. Listen to the staff more about what works within the service j. 8. More importantly would you be able to provide testimonials / feedback from the clients you have worked with that have received SP funded services.
k. Yes with their agreement. V Page Signpost Care Partnerships Ltd
CLG COMMITTEE ENQUIRY INTO SUPPORTING PEOPLE
To what extent has the Supporting People programme delivered its aims as set out in the strategy for Supporting People, June 2007?
The Supporting People programme has largely delivered the aims stated in the Government's strategy Independence and Opportunity: Our Strategy for Supporting People. This was based on four key themes:
· Keeping people at the heart of the programme
This has been achieved through the emphasis on Support Planning and the Quality Assessment Framework standards. However, whether the aim of achieving stability within the sector has been achieved is debatable. Services are still funded on the basis of time-limited contracts (sometimes only one year at a time) and the ability of Administering Authorities to tender services, which often involves a change in the service provider is equally destabilising.
Commissioning is not solely 'people focused' but is about cost saving. The emphasis on floating support at the expense of accommodation based services is reducing the number of choices for service users. Successful providers have had to become tendering experts and, at times, contracts are awarded based on presentation rather than the actual quality of the tenancy support service being proposed.
The programme has made tenancy related support a recognised and highly valued preventative service alongside other statutory services. With the introduction of Outcomes Monitoring in 2005, the focus shifted further from measuring inputs to achieving outputs. More works needs to be done here to move away from contracts based on the number of support hours to outcomes achieved by a service.
· Enhancing partnerships with the Third Sector
The procurement and tendering culture has not always enhanced the development of partnerships but has focused providers more on competition. Many smaller providers have been forced out of the sector through their inability to compete financially or resource-wise with larger providers and many contracts are offered only as countywide services thereby losing the local specialisms and variety of services, along with service user choice, offered by the Third Sector. Whilst the aim of the programme may have been for consortiums of providers, these have had very limited success and the procurement timetable often does not allow for the development of these complex partnerships.
· Delivering in the new local government landscape
Removal of the ring fence is part of the Government's overall agenda of true integration. Under such an environment, Supporting People could not have expected to continue as a separate entity. This aim has been achieved with the removal of the ring fence in April 2009 and the planned transfer of the Supporting People grant to the Area Based Grant in April 2010. There is a wealth of data now being collected to measure the value of the Supporting People programme. It is sad that little use of this has been made both nationally and locally to demonstrate the contribution made by the Supporting People programme to sustainable communities, social cohesion and personal integration.
It must not be forgotten that Supporting People also contributes to a number of national Government strategies such as reducing homelessness, social exclusion, anti-social behaviour, discrimination and the numbers in institional care.
· Increasing efficiency and reducing bureaucracy
Certainly all providers have had to reconsider their support costs and achieve greater efficiencies as year on year their Supporting People grants have failed to keep pace with inflation. It is unlikely that further efficiencies can now be achieved without the quality of service delivery suffering. The revised Quality Assessment Framework, launched April 2009, is an attempt to reduce some of the bureaucracy attached to quality monitoring. However, by failing to make this a national standard, Administering Authorities are able to devise their own quality framework - as has occurred in Dorset where providers will have to meet a different set of standards from the other Administering Authorities.
The Supporting People programme introduced regulation into a sector which up until 2003 had been largely unregulated. Supporting People providers are now accredited and have to demonstrate their strategic relevance as well as their service quality and value for money.
The emphasis on procurement and tendering has created an 'industry' in its own right with some providers having 'specialist departments' for this function. It has yet to be proved that the cost savings achieved through tendering are greater than the actual cost to providers and Administering Authorities in undertaking these exercises. Moreover, negotiation with existing providers could have achieved the same outcomes without the added grief caused to all by the consequential TUPE process when services are transferred to alternative providers.
The Capgemini report was able to demonstrate the savings to the public purse of the SP programme. For every £1.00 spent on supporting people services, the Exchequer saves £1.79 within mainstream services. The value of funding this preventative work nationally has been proved - now the case needs to be made to secure the same funds locally.
What are the implications of removing the ring fence and what needs to happen to protect housing related support?
The lack of a distinctive pot of funding within the Area Based Grants leaves Supporting People money susceptible to bids from other services, particularly statutory services that may be under- funded. Supporting People providers will have to compete, potentially, against statutory responsibilities which is not on a level playing field. Perhaps Councils need to create their own ring fence around their Supporting People commitments. Local and public commitment to preventative services and the achievement of outcomes is needed along with a recognition from adult social care services of Supporting People's contribution to their priorities.
The funding that is used to support client groups that are sometimes perceived as less popular needs to be protected.
Many Local Strategic Partnerships lack knowledge and understanding of the Supporting People programme. Many have no structured representation and equally no specific Supporting People representation, despite being the largest contributor to the pot. Good links need to be established between Supporting People and the Local Strategic Partnerships, ideally by having a senior Supporting People Manager on each Partnership Board.
The Local Strategic Partnership framework lacks the capacity to deal with the Supporting People programme which already has a well-developed infrastructure for governance, planning, performance monitoring and financial control. Supporting People is well ahead of other service areas in its ability to evidence need, service quality and outcomes. Local Strategic Partnerships need to build on this model rather than dismantle it.
The Third Sector is represented on the Local Strategic Partnerships by the Council for Voluntary Services (CVS) but very few of these know about Supporting People and few providers have any relationship with their local CVSs.
More importantly, service users are very removed from the centre of power under the Local Strategic Partnerships. Mechanisms need to be developed to enable commissioners, providers and users to have a realistic influence on local decisions.
Services need to retain their flexibility to respond to changing needs. Many elderly residents moved to sheltered housing to have support available as and when needed, not on the basis of xx hours per week. To offer such residents a purely floating support service (as being proposed in Devon) will undermine the monitoring role played by dedicated on-site staff.
The impact of procurement decisions on property specifications, on Managing Agents and on current financial arrangements with landlords must be considered. Without a Supported Housing sector within a Registered Social Landlord's portfolio, there will be no secure accommodation into which vulnerable adults can be placed and tenancy support services delivered (whether this be floating or accommodation based). Delivering Supported Housing must not become so high risk that Registered Social Landlords decide to withdraw from that part of their business.
The status and funding of 'on-call' equipment needs to be resolved. Before 2003 this was eligible for Transitional Housing Benefit but a number of Supporting People authorities are now stating that the cost of the equipment and the rental of a central telephone line are not Supporting People eligible, even though such equipment is being exclusively used to deliver a support service.
Supporting People providers need to publicise their achievements more to ensure they remain high on the agenda for service procurement under the Area Based Grants. Within the South West, the National Housing Federation is hosting a Supported Housing Month starting on 14 May 2009 where a range of showcase events are being arranged and publicised.
What are the opportunities for improvement and innovation with the move to Area Based Grants?
The Supporting People eligibility criteria caused many delivery issues for some services eg the funding of a child support worker within a Women's Refuge is not eligible for Supporting People grant. Area Based Grants allow a more holistic approach to services and the ability of support providers to demonstrate a contribution to a number of the National Indicators. A flexible holistic funding approach is essential for projects which deliver a range of services, eg in Foyers.
Equally, the ability to build communities within sheltered and extra care schemes through group activities requires staff to take a lead in organising and running them, particularly as the average age on such schemes is increasing. Despite group based activities achieving a number of required 'outcomes' for residents, such a staff role has generally been discouraged by Supporting People authorities.
Area Based Grants allow for new initiatives around improving access or identifying need, around communities rather than an individual client approach and around tackling worklessness which the Supporting People programme cannot deliver.
With an holistic delivery across a range of disciplines, responding to an individualised market-led need, will require procurement practices to be less directive and more outcome focused. Area Based Grants offer an opportunity to develop a 'menu' of contracts which provide enough flexibility to ensure financial stability for providers together with some room to be innovative in the delivery of support. Failure to provide stability could result in more providers ceasing to deliver support.
Area Based Grants will continue the move towards commissioning flexible services across more tenure types.
Area Based Grants offer opportunities for new providers to access funding and potentially could raise the profile again of those Third Sector services which have survived Supporting People.
May 2009
|