Memorandum from the Retirement Housing Group (SPP 63)

 

Summary

 

· The Supporting People programme is increasingly failing to achieve its objective of offering one very substantial category of vulnerable people, the elderly, the opportunity to improve their quality of life through the delivery of high quality specialist supported housing

· the impact of the change to area-based grant is difficult to evaluate but seems unlikely to substantially change this unsatisfactory situation

· a radical rethink of the way in which Supporting People deals with specialist housing for older people is required.

 

Background

 

The Retirement Housing Group of the Home Builders Federation consists of retirement housing developers and housing managers, both RSL and private sector. Its ex officio members include representatives of the charity, the Elderly Accommodation Counsel, and the Association of Retirement Housing Managers. The Advice and Mediation Service (AIMS) of Age Concern is also represented. Its members are therefore involved in the building, management and provision of advice on housing for sale and for rent for people of retirement age and over. Such housing ranges from lifestyle properties for the active, newly retired through to warden assisted housing with community facilities and design modifications through to very sheltered housing with high staffing levels and many additional services and facilities.

 

The Committee's Question

 

The Committee asks how successful the Government's strategy, "Supporting People", launched in June 2007, has been in meeting its stated key objectives viz;

 

* Keeping people that need services at the heart of the programme;

* Enhancing partnership with the Third Sector;

* Delivering in the new local government landscape; and

* Increasing efficiency and reducing bureaucracy

 

and whether the change from ring-fenced to area based grant, which came into effect this April, will help secure successes to date, avoid cuts and help deliver innovation and improvement in delivering housing-related support services.

RHG's response

The Retirement Housing Group's main interest in this issue focuses on the first question raised by the Committee: keeping people that need services at the heart of the programme.

RHG has always had concerns about whether Supporting People in its current form does keep older people's access to appropriate supported housing at the heart of the programme.

When Supporting People was launched it was felt that putting all funding for housing-related services for vulnerable people into a single "pot" could, over time, lead to a shift away from assistance for older people towards other groups which the Supporting People authorities felt were a higher priority. Yet the elderly are by far the largest group of vulnerable people, and are growing: by 2031, 32 % of households will be headed by those aged 65 or over, compared to 26 % in 2006.

Furthermore the "oldest old" is the fastest growing sub-group of the population, according to the Office for National Statistics "Social Trends No.39", published on 11 March. According to ONS there were 96,000 women and 29,000 men aged 90 and over in 1971. By 2007 this had risen to 311,000 women and 106,000 men and, by 2031, there could be 715,000 women and 480,00 men of that age. So the number of frail elderly people are growing at a time when Supporting People funding is being cut: in 2007/08 808,487 older people received housing support through Supporting People, compared to 919,201 in 2003/04. Furthermore in real terms the Supporting People budget has also been falling: 2007/8 budget was £1.696 bn, and will fall to £1,636 bn by 2010/11. Taking inflation into account, this amounts to a 10.9% fall in real terms. This will exacerbate the problem and may well lead to further cuts in allocations to older people's housing.

It is estimated that there are approximately 100,000 units of leasehold sheltered housing and 9,000 units of leasehold extra care sheltered housing; this is a serious under-provision of suitable supported housing for older owner-occupiers. Access is limited by a number of factors, planning being the main one, seriously restricting choice, and affordability (living costs) another. Hence, Supporting People funding for such housing is a factor in limiting access.

One significant problem is the settlement for service charges in leasehold sheltered housing, which distinguishes between 'support' and 'housing' costs. Housing costs are met from Pension Credit and support costs by Supporting People.

 

Only leaseholders in receipt of Guarantee Pension Credit (estimated at about 15,000 people in traditional sheltered housing and 1,500 in extra care sheltered housing) can claim Supporting People grants for the support elements of their service Charge.

 

The service charge in Leasehold Extra-Care Sheltered Housing was divided 50-50 between 'Housing' and 'Care' but the 'Support Costs', previously a legal entitlement, became a matter for discretion by Supporting People authorities, except leaseholders in receipt of Pension Credit in March 2003, who had a protected right to the same amount of grant as they had previously received from Pension Credit, This was not available for new leaseholders.

 

Some authorities are known to be refusing new applicants and introduced a number of hurdles to a successful application for Supporting People funding.

 

This is a paradox when DCLG launched "Lifetime Homes: Lifetime Neighbourhoods" in 2008, stressing its commitment to the provision of specialist housing for older people as a key component of provision.

 

The Committee asks whether the change from ring-fenced to area based grant, which came into effect this April, will help secure successes to date, avoid cuts and help deliver innovation and improvement in delivering housing-related support services.

 

RHG would respond that it is difficult to see how this change will help the older people who are, or should be, assisted by Supporting People in the provision of housing related services until the way in which funding is allocated is radically overhauled.

 

We hope that this is a helpful response and would be happy to provide further information, should the Committee wish us to do so.

 

May 2009