Memorandum from Plymouth City Council Supporting People Independent Provider Forum (SPP 70)

As a group of providers we have pulled together the evidence that we feel gives a view of the supporting people programme's effectiveness in Plymouth. Included in this are recommendation for areas of improvements and also the positive outcomes that have been achieved by clients as a result of SP funded programmes. Providers were asked a series of questions and a summary of the responses are detailed here.

1.1

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?

(1)In the main providers feel that a level of commitment has been demonstrated to ensure the clients have the opportunity to gain independence and have access to opportunities that otherwise would have been in inhibited.

1.2

Do you feel in your experience that the government has been committed to the Supporting People strategy and what it aimed to provide?

(1)Providers have stated that they feel a commitment has been shown to the programme by central government however some felt this was to a certain extent. Some providers felt that by introducing SP this has reduced the number of funding sources and fed this into a single strategically focused grant.

1.3

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?

(1)Some providers felt that Local authorities need to be judged for example by the Audit Commission on what they do to address not just homelessness but related issues and vulnerabilities, including in the context of wider social inclusion.

(2)Furthermore it was felt that the profile of sector needs to be raised by providers and commissioners. The ring fence has protected SP but has also hid the achievements made by the programme. Key messages as part of profile raising are:

(3)Every £ spent on SP services saves £1.79 on other public sector services (Capgemini 2008)

 

(4)CLG currently working on model to demonstrate local savings accruing to LSP partners not just the council

 

(5)Contributes to sustainable communities, safer communities, healthier communities, social inclusion - all SW Regional Housing Strategy objectives

 

(6)Empowers people to achieve their potential

 

(7)Prevents (or reduces) homelessness, crime, hospitalization, prison, repeat offending and drug treatment, domestic abuse etc.

 

(8)These can be demonstrated by outcomes. The sector collates measures and reports on specific outcomes for clients perhaps more than many other public sector services.

 

(9)Outcomes demonstrate that SP is successful - commissioners need to think carefully before cutting expenditure on this sector ahead of other sectors which cannot demonstrate outcomes so effectively

 

(10)One of the few sectors that can respond to people at a time of vulnerability and help prevent greater difficulties.

 

(11)Impact of services (and losing them) on other agencies/local community agendas needs to be considered before any de-commissioning as unintended consequences may result. All stakeholders need to be involved in any de-commissioning decisions.

 

(12)To ensure we don't return to multiple funding streams where tracking and monitoring payment and outcomes becomes impossible.

 

1.4

 

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?

Providers felt that some of the positive opportunities were:

(1)Opportunity for more flexible services to meet locally identified needs once SP ringfence removed /eligibility criteria removed. Can align more with Local Community Plan, LAA rather than SP grant conditions e.g. housing/support plus additional activities ( education, health promotion, life skills, training, sexual health) etc etc

(2)SP has led the way in demonstrating links between needs, expenditure, services and outcomes. Commissioning arrangements e.g. CBs have been a partnership based on needs analysis, strategies, service user consultation and investment/business plans - a model to build on in the 'new' post ringfence world not throw out with the bathwater

(3)Lots of outcome, client, KPI, quality information and data is available and will be of use by LSPs in allocating resources to local community priorities

(4)Opportunity to link housing related support indicators to LSP/LAA targets. Not jus NI 141 and 142 but SP hits lots of LSP indicators/targets particularly at a preventative level.

(5)New partners not traditionally in SP CBs e.g. Police, Safer Communities Partnership, education services can contribute to and benefit from supported housing sector contribution

(6)However there are concerns that the recession will effect the future funding priorities for the local authorities and this could effect areas/clients that don't have prioritised targets. In addition statutory duties will take precedent over third sector due to funding restrictions.

(7)Our sector as stated previously in this report have assisted in achieving the strategic objectives of a number of bodies but have achieved this under one funding stream. This needs to be linked into the LAA and ensured that the positive outcomes are not lost.

1.5

What positives have you experienced since the SP programme has been operating?

Improvements in quality of services and clarity over the coordination and planning of services. This is especially evidenced through the introduction of the QAF - Quality assessment framework, service reviews involving stakeholders and clients, meaningful partnership working with SP teams to improve service, the evidence of positive outcomes/achievements demonstrated by clients, the single clear funding source and single regulatory framework.

1.6

What negatives have you experienced since the SP programme has been operating?

(1)Procurement leading to bigger orgs pushing out local services, especially as it relies on in-depth expertise of SP and procurement teams.

(2)Bureaucratic burden in some cases however some of it worthwhile and purposeful.

(3)Competitive tendering (where this has led to destabilizing of local markets, services, staff and clients). This can be labour intensive and has sometimes resulted in unintended consequences for local market (e.g. Costs to providers in tendering are high. A recent tendering exercise involved 12 staff for 15 days = c. £20K payroll. Contract value of £950K. Assuming 10 providers tender for service = £200k to procure a £950k service)

(4)Too much early focus on outputs and quantity, too little understanding by SP commissioners of the real issue faced on the ground in running services. This has improved over the programme which is now more outcome focused.

(5)Pressures of competitive tendering with uncertainties for staff and clients, unrealistic and shifting timescales imposed by commissioners.

(6)Pressures on smaller providers who may not have resources to carry out tendering exercises or present tenders as well as larger providers with more dedicated resources - but may actually be able to provide a better service in practice

(7)Despite focus on outcomes for clients as a measurement of achievement, providers are still subject to a large amount of process audit.

 

May 2009