|
|
This is Wolverhampton
Supporting People's response to the Communities and Local Government Select
Committee call for evidence. The
response is formed of four parts based on the Committee inquiries'
considerations:
a) what
Wolverhampton feel are the key achievements/benefits and areas that could
have been improved in relation to the Supporting People programme in general
b) the
extent to which Wolverhampton has, so far, delivered against the commitments
and expectations of Local Authorities contained in Independence and Opportunity, and our views on how far the
Government has delivered on its commitments
c) what
Wolverhampton consider to be the implications (both opportunities and risks)
of the removal of the ring fence and grant conditions
d) what
Wolverhampton is doing to drive forward housing related support in the new
arrangements
|
|
Summary
|
|
|
|
|
a) What Wolverhampton feel are the key
achievements/benefits and areas that could have been improved in relation to
the Supporting People Programme in general
|
|
|
Key Achievements/Benefits
Wolverhampton
believe the main benefit of the Supporting People programme has been the
significant successful outcomes that have been achieved for people accessing
Supporting People services. This is
evidenced through the National Outcomes information.
The
Supporting People programme has been successful in helping to build the
capacity of the Third Sector, both through contracting arrangements,
partnership working and training initiatives.
The
Quality Assessment Framework has been a valuable tool for both commissioners
and providers. In Wolverhampton, this
has been recognised as an example of good practice and forms the basis for
the development of a new quality assessment framework which will be used for
all services commissioned through the Joint Commissioning Unit.
Key areas that could have been improved
The
level of bureaucracy involved in administering the Supporting People
programme could be considered as disproportionate to the level of funding,
with significant amounts of information required from both providers and
local authorities in comparison to the grant value.
From
Wolverhampton's perspective, it is felt that the redistribution formula for
the Supporting People grant should have been implemented, as this would have
helped to ensure that Local Authorities were receiving an appropriate level
of funding.
|
|
b) The extent
to which Wolverhampton has, so far, delivered against the commitments and
expectations of Local Authorities contained in Independence and Opportunity,
and our views on how far the Government has delivered on its commitments.
|
|
|
Wolverhampton believes it
is delivering, or has delivered, 19 of the 20 expectations, placed on Local
Authorities, contained within Independence
and Opportunity. Details in
relation to the key activities undertaken are given below.
|
|
Expectations of Local Authorities
Theme 1:
Keeping people that need services at the heart of the Programme
Expectation 1: 'Work collaboratively; to plan
services at the sub-regional and regional levels - which is vital if they are
to successfully meet the needs of mobile groups and deliver housing support
services more efficiently.'
|
|
|
Wolverhampton is a member
of the West Midlands Regional Information Group (WMRIG) and contributes to
the development planning of services across the region. We are currently working in partnership
with Birmingham, Dudley and Walsall Supporting People teams to commission a
service for people with chaotic lifestyles and complex needs.
Wolverhampton is also
co-ordinating a sub-group of the WMRIG which specifically focuses on
developing cross-authority services where there is an identified need in
order to improve outcomes for service users and value for money of the
services commissioned.
|
|
Expectation 2: 'Engage with, and learn from, the
Individual Budgets pilots and other choice led personal funding mechanisms,
and to consider how they might take forward a similar approach across the
relevant service and funding streams in their area.'
|
|
|
Wolverhampton Supporting
People is actively engaged in the local Putting People First programme,
leading on the needs analysis work stream.
Commissioning Board have approved proposals to change the ways in
which Supporting People services are contracted for in order to move towards
a more personalised approach to the services that are commissioned.
|
|
Expectation 3: 'Work with us [CLG] to develop a
template for charters to enable independent living
|
|
|
Whilst Wolverhampton have
local documents and activities in place in relation to involvement of service
users and consistent standards for services, we are not aware of any national
template being developed for charters to enable independent living.
|
|
Expectation 4: 'Ensure that there is effective
communication with service users and to explain changes properly to service
users.'
|
|
|
We have a full time
Participation Officer, who is responsible for ensuring that service users are
actively engaged in all aspects of the Supporting People programme and to
ensure that communication is effective.
The key activities that take place are:
- Experts
by Experience panel and related sub-groups (Inform sectorial reviews and
strategic/policy development)
- Pre-Commissioning
Board meeting to inform CB decisions
- Lay
Assessors (assist reviewing officer with validation visits)
- Website
pages (regularly updated)
- Newsletter
(available for general public)
- Information
Leaflets (distributed widely to public buildings)
|
|
Expectation 5: 'Consider how services will need to
respond to local demographic changes within their regional housing strategies
and sustainable community strategies.'
|
|
|
The Housing Futures Plan
in Wolverhampton considers how we will respond to local demographic
changes. The plan has a specific
partnership commitment in relation to housing support (Partnership commitment
22: We will support a move to giving people greater choice in how their
housing and support needs are met.).
|
|
Theme 2:
Enhancing partnership with the Third Sector
Expectation 6: 'Pass on three year funding
certainty to Third Sector providers, explicitly including Supporting People
contracts.'
|
|
|
The majority of
Wolverhampton's providers are from the Third Sector. Steady State contracts are in place for a
duration of 3 years in most cases with an option to extend for a further 2
years.
|
|
Expectation 7: 'Comply with their commitments under
the Compact, and with full cost recovery - commissioners and funders should
be prepared to meet the full costs and reasonable overheads associated with
Third Sector Delivery.'
|
|
|
Wolverhampton's value for
money methodology for Supporting People recognises the need to ensure
overhead costs are covered, using SITRA recommended levels as a guide.
|
|
Expectation 8: 'Continue to support innovation,
challenge and benchmark processes and costs against each other, to identify
potential areas for further improvement.'
|
|
|
Wolverhampton have
developed two pilot services in areas where innovation was required. No housing support services were
previously commissioned in the areas of HIV/AIDS or Acquired Brian
Injury. A need had been identified
but it was not clear exactly what the configuration of the services would
need to be. Commissioners worked with
relevant partner organisations, from both statutory and third sector
organisations to undertake two pilot projects (one for HIV/AIDS and one for
Acquired Brain Injury). The outcomes
achieved during the pilot period helped to evidence the need and appropriate
service configuration were confirmed.
Further funding has now been identified to continue with these
services for a longer period.
Wolverhampton has
undertaken a Value for Money assessment of each Supporting People service,
which involved an assessment of:
-
Strategic Relevance
-
Eligibility & Support Levels
-
Outcomes
-
Quality and Performance
-
Price
The outcomes of these
assessment ensured that similar services were of a comparable price for the
quality provided. The value for money
assessments used regional benchmarking data to establish acceptable cost
ranges.
Wolverhampton is a member
of the West Midlands Benchmarking Group, which collates and analyses regional
information collected in relation to Supporting People in relation to the
quality, cost and performance of services to inform service monitoring and
development.
|
|
Expectation 9: 'Ensure that their [LA's] providers
have the level of support they need, including capacity building.'
|
|
|
The Wolverhampton service
review process identifies areas where providers can learn from each other in
order to improve the service delivered.
The review officer will signpost providers who can improve their
service in a particular area to a provider who is performing well in order
for them to share good practice.
|
|
|
Providers routinely work
together through the Provider Forum to share good practice with each
other. There have been several
examples of larger providers working with smaller voluntary sector providers
to help them improve their services.
|
|
|
Wolverhampton Supporting
People subsidise a Provider Training Programme, delivered by SITRA
trainers. Providers work with
commissioners to identify the courses that will be held and the Local
Authority undertake all the administration in relation to the courses.
Wolverhampton also provide
regular free training for providers, delivered by Local Authority experts on
key areas such as Safeguarding and Welfare Rights.
|
|
Expectation 10: 'Continue to work with national
organisations such as the National Housing Federation, HACT, Foundations and
Sitra to support and build capacity in the sector.'
|
|
|
As well as working with
SITRA to deliver a comprehensive training programme for Providers, we ensure
Providers are made aware of external training sessions provided by national
organisations. We also ensure
providers and other stakeholders are made aware of the outcomes of research
undertaken by national organisations.
|
|
Theme 3:
Delivering in the new local government landscape
Expectation 11: 'Bring together and lead the wider
range of commissioners, providers and stakeholders whose contributions are
crucial for effectively delivering Supporting People.'
|
|
|
The Supporting People
commissioning function in Wolverhampton is part of Adults and Communities and
is located in the Joint Commissioning unit.
This enables a close working relationship with commissioners across
both the Local Authority and PCT.
A broad range of
stakeholders are represented at both Strategy Implementation Group and
Commissioning Board level, including Service Users, Providers (both RSLs and
voluntary sector), Probation, Housing, Social Care, Health, Children &
Young People, Police, Youth Offending Team.
In addition to this,
Supporting People is represented throughout the Local Area Agreement
governance and delivery structure which ensures the cross cutting nature of
Supporting People is meaningfully reflected in a range of different contexts.
|
|
Expectation 12: 'Ensure that the remit and
responsibilities of the Commissioning Body remain clear and up to date, and
that the Commissioning Body is receiving timely and accurate information.'
|
|
|
The Commissioning Board in
Wolverhampton has clear Terms of Reference.
The Board meet every two months and routinely receive information from
the Strategy Implementation Group and Provider Forum. The Board also receive information on any
wider initiatives affecting Supporting People.
|
|
Expectation 13: 'Make housing support part of their
[LA's] coordinated approach to delivering for the most disadvantaged and
vulnerable people in their areas - which means ensuring that Supporting
People is integrated within their future Local Area Agreement frameworks.'
|
|
|
Wolverhampton secured the
inclusion of NI142 within our LAA in 2007/08, agreeing 3 year stretch targets
in line with CLG requirements.
Supporting People is represented throughout the LAA governance
structure.
Supporting People is
leading on the delivery of two actions within the LAA Delivery Plan for
Supporting Inclusion, working with city-wide partners to improve social
inclusion and reduce vulnerability in Wolverhampton.
A mapping exercise of the
contribution Supporting People makes to several indicators within the
National Indicator set has taken place and has been reported to partners and
wider stakeholders across the city, in order to raise awareness of the cross
cutting benefits of Supporting People.
|
|
Expectation 14: 'Adhere to full cost recovery
principles for service providers in commissioning services.'
|
|
|
Wolverhampton SP recognises that organisations
commissioned to deliver SP services should not be required to subsidise the
services commissioned from their own resources. It is accepted that core
management and administration costs need to be met if organisations are to
operate efficiently and effectively.
Wolverhampton SP works closely with providers through value for money
assessments in order to ensure a service price acceptable to both parties is
agreed.
|
|
Expectation 15: 'Prepare to deliver their
Supporting People programmes through their new area based grant by April
2009, subject to CSR and pilot evaluation.'
|
|
|
Wolverhampton has ensured
that the Council and it's partners are aware of the changes in relation to
Supporting People through reports and presentations at a wide range of partnership
boards.
Evidence has been
presented to partnership boards and scrutiny panels in relation to how
housing related support can help to deliver a wide range of cross cutting
initiatives to achieve LAA targets.
The Commissioning Board
have ensured effective communication takes place with the Local Strategic
Partnership in order to manage a smooth transition following the removal of
the ringfence.
|
|
Theme 4:
Increasing efficiency and reducing bureaucracy
Expectation 16: 'Make appropriate use of their
local work to include and take forward the objectives set out in the SPVIP,
particularly in relation to maximising value for money, and encouraging local
projects where none are yet in place.'
|
|
|
The application of the Value for Money methodology
in Wolverhampton assessed services against 5 criteria; Strategic Relevance, Eligibility
& Support Levels, Outcomes, Quality and Performance and Price. The savings realised equated to over 5% of
the Supporting People programme grant in Wolverhampton.
Two new local support projects in relation to
HIV/AIDS and Acquired Brain Injury have been set up through Supporting
People.
|
|
Expectation 17: 'Recognise the costs associated
with their [LA's] information requirements, and to think about whether they
really represent best value for money.'
|
|
|
Wolverhampton SP have
worked closely with providers and stakeholders to develop a new Contract
Monitoring and Review Framework. Now
in place, this framework pulls together monitoring and review requirements in
a co-ordinated way. The framework
includes, Contract Compliance, Performance Management, Quality Assessment and
Value for Money.
|
|
Expectation 18: 'Benchmark service costs, to
identify areas where further potential improvements could be made.'
Expectation 19: 'Work together regionally to
benchmark administrative requirements and costs, to try to minimise these
costs and free-up more money for frontline delivery.'
|
|
|
Wolverhampton is
represented at the West Midlands Regional Benchmarking Group in order to
ensure that regular benchmarking activity can be undertaken with the most
recent information.
Benchmarking information
is used to identify areas of good practice and underperformance in order to
improve frontline delivery of services, as well as addressing high service and
administration costs.
|
|
Expectation 20: Consider how they could improve
efficiency and administration through the application of Business Process
Improvement and mobile technology
|
|
|
The integration of the
Supporting People commissioning function within the Joint Commissioning unit
has enabled improvements in joint working processes. Other areas of the Supporting People
programme, such as contracting and monitoring have also been embedded within
mainstream teams in order to ensure processes are efficient.
Commissioners have worked
with providers through the value for money process to explore how their
business processes could be further improved in order to realise
efficiencies.
|
|
Government Commitments
|
|
|
We feel that the
government has delivered, or is delivering the majority of commitments
identified in Independence and
Opportunity.
Within the commitments not
delivered, Wolverhampton feel that there are key areas which haven't been achieved,
which would have provided significant benefit to the SP programme had they
been implemented. These are:
'Work with Local Authorities and providers to encourage the
development of service user involvement plans, and 'Charters for Independent
Living' to provide clear and accessible standards for Supporting People services.'
'Develop a model to help Local Authorities target
people who would benefit from preventative services.'
'Minimise obstacles preventing good quality
providers from across public, private and Third Sector organisations from
competing fairly to deliver housing related support.'
'Invest in the skills of commissioners, improve
commissioning from third sector, develop cross-Whitehall models for joint
commissioning to ensure the sector can be certain of high quality commission,
as set out in the OTS Third Sector Action Plan.'
|
|
c) Considerations
Wolverhampton feel need to be taken account of in relation to the removal of
the ring fence and grant conditions
|
|
|
The future of Supporting
People will vary greatly in each LA area, unless central government give some
direction or requirement of Local Authorities to deliver such services.
Removal of the grant
conditions will enable, in the long term, more innovative services to be
developed and will increase flexibility.
However, the removal of the ringfence could be a risk as well as a
potential gain in relation to funding allocated to supporting vulnerable
people through housing related support.
There is a need to
consider the long term gains of Supporting People, as highlighted in the
research undertaken in 2008 in relation to the financial benefits of
Supporting People. It should be noted
that this is not just about finances, it needs to be considered in the
context of the people concerned. If
the vulnerable people concerned are not requiring higher cost services, this
means that their wellbeing has been maintained for longer than it would have
been without Supporting People in place.
The sustained wellbeing of vulnerable people will be at risk without
Supporting People services.
Wolverhampton feel that
key areas that need to be retained are:
· The
continuation of adequate funding for housing related support services from
Area Based Grant
· Maintaining
the current focus of housing related support (continuing to be centred around
excluded groups)
· Grasping
opportunities to develop more innovative services through housing related
support, following removal of grant conditions
· Maintaining
some national direction in relation to the aims of housing related support,
to retain some consistency in delivery
· Maintaining
mechanisms for evidencing the overall benefits and outcomes achieved through
housing related support
|
|
d) What Wolverhampton
is doing to drive forward housing related support in the new arrangements
|
|
|
The commissioning function
for Supporting People is located in the Joint Commissioning Unit in
Wolverhampton. This ensures that even
in the new arrangements, there is a specific commissioning team dealing with
housing support and social inclusion.
Supporting People is
included in the mainstream commissioning activity in Wolverhampton, including
work in relation to the Putting People First concordat.
'Supporting Inclusion' is
a key theme in the Local Area Agreement, evidencing the city's commitment to
social inclusion and preventative services.
Supporting People is a key partner in the delivery of this theme -
leading on two principle activities within the plan.
Commissioning Board are in
communication with the Local Strategic Partnership in relation to the ongoing
funding allocation for Supporting People from the Area Based Grant. No confirmation has been received to date
in relation to funding from 2010/11. It
continues to be a priority for the Commissioning Board to establish the level
of funding to be made available.
|
|
|
|
