Memorandum from Depaul UK (SPP 74)

 

Summary

 

1. The Supporting People programme has had many positive impacts.

 

2. Where it has worked well we have seen an increased focus on the needs of those who use services and has fostered good practice among commissioners and providers.

 

3. However, in recent years we have seen the increasing pressure on finances passed on to providers in a way that has undermined their ability to provide their capacity to continue as providers.

 

4. We are calling for the Committee to consider including in its report:

 

a. Encouragement to all LSPs to familiarise themselves with the Capgemini report on the benefits of the SP programme

 

b. Endorsement of Depaul UK's plans to create a national youth homelessness crisis accommodation service and a national observatory on youth homelessness

 

c. Recommendation that the Committee reconvenes in two years time to review the impact of the removal of the ring-fence

 

d. Recommendation that the option is retained to impose a partial ring-fence if there is evidence that youth homelessness is adversely affected by the removal of the ring-fence.

 

Depaul UK

 

5. Depaul UK (Depaul) is the largest national youth homelessness charity. It has sixteen Supporting People (SP) contracts worth around £3.5m to provide services for young people at risk. In addition, it operates a variety of services that are 'wrapped round' this SP provision, aimed either at preventing youth homelessness or enhancing outcomes from accommodation services. The organisation provides more than 100,000 bednights across the UK.

 

6. In addition to its SP funded accommodation, Depaul UK supports 50 Nightstop schemes around the UK. Nightstop uses volunteer hosts who offer up to three nights free accommodation in their won homes to young people who are homeless.

 

Keeping People who use services at the heart of the programme

 

7. It aimed to keep people that need services at the heart of the programme. The SP Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) has helped to make good progress towards this objective. Prior to the implementation of the QAF, Depaul used the PQASSO quality assurance framework but abandoned it for the QAF because its goals and values matched ours, particularly in regard to keeping clients at the centre of everything we do.

 

8. Where SP has not worked well in this regard has been in the commissioning process. We have found it much more difficult to provide the highly personalised service that chaotic young people need, particularly when young people have to prove a local connection and that they are not intentionally homeless. This has been particularly significant in our work with young offenders.

 

9. One problem we have encountered is the lack of flexibility across SP funded services within different Local Authorities which has made cross borough referrals almost impossible. Local Authorities want to fund only their own young people, in spite of guidance to the contrary. We have felt the need to refer young people out of borough for their own safety. With the removal of the ring-fencing we fear this could become even worse.

 

10. We have also seen varied examples of joint commissioning of services. Where this has worked well, we have been able to channel various resources to meet the complex needs of some of the young people we support. In Oldham and Rochdale, for example, joint commissioning (and joint referral) arrangements have worked well. Where it has not worked well, we have had to bear the financial risk of taking young people with high support needs and we recognise that many other providers have been unwilling or unable to take this level of risk. We hope that the removal of the ring fence will help to promote better joint working between Housing, Children's' Services, PCTs and SP.

 

Enhancing Partnership with the Third Sector

 

11. In many ways SP has achieved this agenda, too. Although, fundamentally, our relation with SP authorities is a contractual one, in many instances we have been able to work alongside Local Authorities to make sure our services remain strategically relevant, give good value for money and are well connected with other services that can meet the varied needs of the young people we serve.

 

12. Where we have had difficulties they have been because of poor procurement practices. The lack of willingness of some LAs to passport accreditation has been frustrating, although this has become better in recent years.

 

13. We have found there to be a greater sense within the Sector that we are competitors now and this has undermined some of the joint working that has gone on in the past. Many of us are working hard to ensure that there is a spirit of collaboration too and umbrella organisations like Sitra and Homeless Link have played a valuable role in countering this tendency for some parts of the Sector to withdraw from partnership working.

 

14. Many Local Authorities are now commissioning larger organisations under single contracts. This in itself will endanger smaller specialist voluntary sector agencies from being able to deliver services that recognise the needs of particular client groups. Clearly, we have a particular concern about the place of services for young people as we see more commissioning of 'generic' housing support and our experience is that such provision is not usually adequate to meet the needs of vulnerable young people.

 

 

Delivering in the new local government landscape

 

15. SP has found it difficult in many areas to place itself in the new local government landscape. We have found it difficult to ensure that that the needs of young people leaving care, young people with offending backgrounds and young people with mental health needs receive a 'joined-up' service that sits alongside their housing support needs.

 

16. There is also a sense that the SP programme has not been fully appreciated by elected members at local level and has not always connected well with LSPs. Unless this happens, there is a real possibility that Housing Related Support will suffer and we will see resources which demonstrably contribute to the public purse diverted to other areas of expenditure leading to an ultimate rise in costs.

 

17. We recommend that every LSP be encouraged to read the Capgemini report on the financial benefits of the Supporting People programme.

 

Increasing efficiency and reducing bureaucracy

 

18. SP has gradually become better at increasing efficiency and reducing bureaucracy as it has become more embedded. Some of the early concerns about the quality assurance process and the commissioning process have been addressed.

 

19. However, like many providers, we have found the drive towards greater efficiency has actually meant the use of very blunt efficiency measures. These have required providers to provide the same or an enhanced level of service without recognising the impact of inflation. As an example, for Depaul between 2003 and 2006, the cost of providing our SP funded services rose by 3% each year but, overall, the income reduced by 0.6% over the same three years. So, although we have worked very hard to achieve these savings year on year, this has been to the financial detriment of the organisation.

 

20. We have seen some providers choose to withdraw from providing SP funded services on account of this, and some providers now offer less of a service to their clients. Some clients using our training projects have told us that they have noticed that they are now receiving lower levels of support from their accommodation providers.

 

21. We have also noticed that SP has become a significant barrier for smaller organisations starting up new services or seeking to establish with more secure funding, services that need to develop.

 

Removal of Ring-Fence

 

22. It is, of course, too early to anticipate the effect of the removal of the ring-fence. There are genuine opportunities for our clients. The removal of the ring-fence should, in theory, make the provision of tailored services easier, particularly for those in greatest need. It should also help to progress the personalisation agenda.

 

23. However, we are deeply concerned that for groups that are small in number, face multiple disadvantage and are not popular with the electorate, there is a risk that by removing the ring-fence, Central Government will lose its ability to monitor the changing face of youth homelessness and, perhaps even more importantly, lose a significant lever for change in order to ensure that its youth homelessness and rough sleeping strategies are achieved.

 

24. Local Authorities will be faced with very difficult choices over the next few years and we are concerned that many of the lessons learned over the last twenty years will be forgotten and that we will see a return to rising youth homelessness and the sight of young people sleeping in shop doorways and parks again.

 

25. We have therefore announced our intention to develop a national crisis accommodation service for young people and a national observatory on youth homelessness. And we call on the Committee to consider supporting this initiative and making a commitment to monitor and maintain the safety net that has been developed by SP funding over recent years.

 

26. We also ask that the Committee agree to reconvene this Enquiry in two years time, when we are likely to be seeing the impact of the removal of the ring-fence.

 

27. Finally, we would ask the Committee to recommend that the option is held open to ask for a partial reintroduction of the ring-fence if we find, over those next two years, that housing related support for young people, and young offenders in particular, is being adversely affected by the changes.

 

May 2009