Memorandum
from Centrepoint (SPP 81)
Summary
· The Supporting People
(SP) programme has greatly improved the support available for vulnerable groups
by increasing resources for support services and raising awareness in local
authorities of the needs of vulnerable groups.
· SP funding works most
effectively where strong links are built between different SP services and with
statutory services to form a coherent package of support.
· The SP programme could
improve by creating multi local authority initiatives which address the needs
of transient groups such as rough sleepers, for example through multi area
agreements.
· The Quality Assurance
Framework (QAF) has been effective at driving up standards by placing a
stronger focus on quality and outcomes.
However, a minority of local authorities have continued to use the old
QAF while most are using the updated version, placing a high administrative
burden on organisations operating in more than one local authority.
· The SP programme
could also help providers give a better service by providing longer-term
funding contracts and streamlining the reporting requirements on them.
· Centrepoint has not
seen any evidence of the removal of the ring fence having a significant impact,
and hopes that we as an organisation will be better placed than other
organisations to survive any shake-ups given the importance many local
authorities place on youth services.
· In order to remain
viable, it will be important for providers to adapt their services to meet the
changing demands of local authorities.
· But we believe the
flexibility of the new system could create the opportunity for more prevention
work and a more holistic view of service provision for vulnerable young people.
Introduction
1. Centrepoint
is the leading national charity working with homeless young people aged 16 to
25. We are a registered social landlord, and a company limited by guarantee.
Established almost 40 years ago, we work successfully to help homeless young
people build firm foundations, turn their lives around and fulfil their
potential. All our work is informed by
our distinctive support and development approach which responds to young people
in a holistic way, with direct services attending to the issues of housing and
home, income, learning, and health.
2. Centrepoint
receives Supporting People (SP) funding to provide accommodation-based support
services for homeless young people in 19 local authorities across London and
the North East. We welcome the
Communities and Local Government Committee's inquiry into the SP programme, as
we have seen first-hand the great benefits that the programme has brought to
vulnerable young people in recent years, and therefore recognise how important
it is that these advances are protected and built upon.
How
far the SP programme is achieving its objectives
3. The 2007 strategy
for the SP programme, Independence and
Opportunity: Our Strategy for Supporting People, broadly defined the
purpose of the SP programme as "ensuring that some of society's most vulnerable
people receive help and support to live independently... and enabling vulnerable
people to participate fully in the social and economic life of their
communities."
4. Through its work
with the Supporting People programme, Centrepoint has seen the great progress the
programme has made in achieving these goals.
Since its conception in 2003, the SP programme has helped to improve accountability of local
authorities for the well-being of vulnerable people in their borough, and
increased the resources available to support them. For example, the SP programme was important in reducing the
numbers of 16 and 17 year olds in temporary accommodation by providing accommodation-based
support services for this group of vulnerable young people.
5. The existence of the programme has also led
to a greater understanding within local authorities of the challenges facing
vulnerable people. Such understanding
has been important in bringing about changes such as increased availability of
schemes which help homeless people access private rented accommodation by helping
them to afford rent deposits.
6. The Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) has led
to improved services for service users on the ground, by providing a greater
focus on quality and outcomes (see paragraphs 16-21 for more details about the
QAF).
Joined up working
7. The local authorities where
the SP programme has worked best are those which have built strong links
between different services and organisations.
There have been a number of very positive examples of how the SP
programme has helped to create a cohesive pathway through different services. This cohesion has meant the changing needs
of individual service users have been more effectively met, increasing the
likelihood of them achieving positive outcomes in the longer term.
8. In Lewisham, for example,
the SP programme funds Centrepoint to provide a short-stay (3 month) supported
accommodation service and assessment centre.
From here, they can then progress to longer term supported accommodation
if required. Alongside these services,
Lewisham also funds support services which give young people the help they need
to live in independent accommodation, which can act as a useful stepping stone
for young people leaving our more intensive support services. SP accommodation-based services in the
borough also work closely with domestic violence teams, the drug and alcohol
team, and the youth offending to ensure that the complex needs of young
homeless people are met as effectively as possible.
9. The most successful
SP services are also successfully integrated into mainstream services. For example, many Pathways teams have strong
links with SP services, referring care leavers with relevant support needs to
SP supported accommodation and floating support services. This allows individual young people to
receive the help most relevant to them, irrelevant of which funding stream they
may have originally come under.
10. In Camden, there
have also been successful links made between SP and local statutory housing
resources. The local authority's SP
team has worked with service providers such as Centrepoint to provide better
move-on options for vulnerable people leaving supported accommodation. The involvement of the SP team was very
beneficial as they managed to broker the allocation of more statutory housing
to SP service users.
Role of local authority as main referrer
11. Many
local authorities have set up central referral services (such as SNAP in
Lambeth and SHIP in Sutton) which look at all the referrals made to SP
services, and allocate these referrals to the most appropriate provider. This generally works quite effectively, and
means that each provider is meeting a local strategic need.
12. However, we do have concerns about the conflict
of interest that arises from local authorities being the commissioners of SP
services but, at the same time, increasingly providing 100% of referrals. This
can lead to difficulties when clients are assessed by the provider as too high
support for a particular service. The
provider will often find it very difficult to convince the local authority that
the person they are referring is not suited for the service. This means that
providers can be asked to take unacceptably high levels of risk by accepting
referrals that are of an unsuitably high support need.
Lack of cross-local authority initiatives
13. Although many local
authorities are doing quite well at linking up services within their borough,
more needs to be done to improve cross-local authority working. Many vulnerable groups, such as rough
sleepers, are transient and cross many different local authority
boundaries. As they are all operating
with limited budgets, local authorities do not want to take responsibility for
rough sleepers from different boroughs.
This means that this group is often left without sufficient and
appropriate provision. In this way, the
SP programme is currently failing to achieve one of its objectives in the 2007
strategy to "ensure that access to services is not unnecessarily restricted
through local connections or administrative boundaries".
14. Supporting People
should therefore look into commissioning multi-borough projects where different
local authorities work together effectively to ensure that the needs of these
transient groups are met. Unless local
authorities take responsibility for regional problems, services for transient
groups such as organisations working with rough sleepers may not be
sustainable. Communities and Local
Government (CLG) could perhaps consider creating more incentives for local
authorities to take on clients from outside the borough, for example, by saying
that SP services in certain areas can only fill 80% of their spaces with people
who have a local connection. Multi area
agreements could be one mechanism to realise this.
15. Some local
authorities have effectively set up cross border initiatives but unfortunately
these remain the exception rather than the rule. Lewisham, for example, has been successful in creating links with
other local authorities to help relocate people fleeing gang violence. But such initiatives are by no means
widespread and more needs to be done to create cross-border solutions to
regional and national problems.
The Quality Assurance Framework
16. Adhering closely to the QAF has helped
Centrepoint to continuously improve its service offer. At an organisational level, the QAF has
helped us to create a consistent approach to quality across all Centrepoint
services and ensure that all young people we work with receive an excellent
service. This has been achieved by the
introduction of improved policy and procedures which are aligned with the standards
in the QAF. For example, we have updated
our Support and Development approach, which forms the basis of all our direct
service work, in light of the guidelines set out in the QAF and the Common
Assessment Framework.
17. The emphasis on service user consultation in
the new QAF has had particularly positive effects on service provision. We have placed service user consultation at
the heart of our work and routinely consult with the young people we work with
about how our services are delivered. These
consultations have helped us to improve our complaints procedure as well as our
welcome handbook, which now includes more information about the local area and
cultural activities following feedback from young people. We are currently in the process of creating
our own consultation framework which will standardise the way in which we
consult with young people and key external stakeholders.
18. Centrepoint's efforts to integrate the QAF
standards into its policies and procedures have helped us achieve very positive
ratings in SP reviews. In Jan-Dec 2008,
8% of Centrepoint services were rated level A, 46% were at a level B and 46%
were at a level C, and for supplementary QAFs we achieved over 75% at level B.
19. Although we believe the QAF is very positive in
principle, we do face a number of challenges arising from how different local
authorities use the QAF. In February
2009, an updated QAF was introduced by CLG, but they did not stipulate that
local authorities had to use the new version of the QAF, under the premise that
it is still an optional tool. This has
meant that while most local authorities are beginning to use the new version, a
minority are still asking providers to use the old version. This puts great strain on organisations
which operate in multiple local authorities as it means that we have to operate
according to two different QAF frameworks.
This increases bureaucracy, which runs in contrast to one of the key
aims laid down in the 2007 strategy to "increase efficiency and
reduce bureaucracy". Furthermore, given
that the QAF is designed to be used as a national framework, it loses value if
not all local authorities are working to the same sets of standards. It should therefore be made mandatory for all
local authorities to use the single updated QAF.
20. In order to further
the aim of reducing bureaucracy, the SP programme should consider working more
closely with other government agencies to align the QAF with other regulatory
frameworks such as the Audit Commission's Key Lines of Enquiry and the Tenant
Services Authority standards. At
present, organisations like Centrepoint are required to prove how they meet all
three different sets of standards which is extremely labour and resource
intensive. Supporting People funding
includes very little money for overheads, and the funding does not cover the
total amount which Centrepoint has to spend on reporting and monitoring
required by the SP programme.
21. Centrepoint has noted
some reduction in bureaucracy, but this has mainly been through less in-depth
contract management on behalf of SP commissioners. For example, providers are
now asked to do self-assessment rather than commissioners conducting regular
site visits. Although we are not
against these changes, they have not done much to help to reduce the reporting
burden on providers. CLG should
therefore look into ways in which SP reporting requirements on providers can be
streamlined.
Commissioning arrangements
22. In the 2007
strategy, the Government committed to making "funding more sustainable and
stable" by moving to three year funding. Centrepoint has not seen this
materialise and on the whole still receives year-to-year contracts. However, we are hopeful that this will
improve in the future, as we believe this short-term contract culture has been
largely driven by commissioners wanting to see what effect the removal of the
ring fence would have.
23. Over recent years
there has been a significant shift from reporting on outcomes rather than
inputs. Centrepoint believes this to be
a broadly positive change as it focuses on what services can achieve. However, not all of our contracts are judged
on a purely output basis. Some
contracts are still linked to the number of workers employed, rather than on
how the service is performing. We
believe the outcome model should be adopted universally so that services have
the flexibility to organise their services how best suits their organisation so
that they can meet the outcome objectives most effectively.
Impact
of the removal of the SP ring fence
24. Centrepoint views the removal of the SP ring fence
as a potential point of concern and therefore believes that the effect of the
removal of the ring fence should be monitored very closely, but we have thus
far seen no evidence that it will have a significant effect on the provision of
funding for our services.
25. Centrepoint believes it is less likely to be
detrimentally affected by the removal of the ring fence than other homelessness
organisations as young people's services are generally high in the priorities
of local authorities. We are therefore
confident that a substantial decrease in overall provision is unlikely. Services for 16 and 17 year olds in
particular have become better resourced and better integrated after 16/17s were
made a priority need group. But
organisations working with less 'popular' groups may be more likely to see cuts
in their services. We also have some
concerns that non-specialist young people's providers such as large RSLs may be
more likely to win new SP contracts due to the greater level of resources they
can deploy to secure the contracts.
26. In addition to the removal of the ring fence,
there has been concern about the value of SP contracts decreasing due to the
reduction in the total SP budget being given to local authorities. Our recent figures suggest that this has not
been a problem in the past year - the total value of our SP contracts (ignoring
new or lost contracts) increased by £150,362 between 2008/9 and 2009/10 due to
inflationary increases on our core contracts - but if the last few years are
taken into account, we have experienced cuts in funding. Over the past five years of the SP
programme, significant cuts in the grants being made have pushed many of our SP
contracts into deficit.
27. We have also seen losses in the past year where
contracts have been suspended or not been renewed, meaning we have had to
reduce the number of services we provide.
If new, lost or temporarily closed contracts due to refurbishment are
taken into account we have seen a 6% or £483,000 decrease between 2008/9 and
2009/10, largely due to reconfiguration and refurbishment as part of the Places
of Change programme. Whilst managing this change is a short-term issue, it does
impact on our activities in this financial year.
Q
- What needs to be done to ensure that the successes of the programme so far
are not lost, or services cut, following the change?
28. In order to protect services, providers will need
to demonstrate how their services meet PSA outcomes. This can be achieved through increasing links between their
services and mainstream statutory services.
If providers can help fulfill a statutory need, for example by catering
for care leavers or 16/17 year olds, then they are more likely to survive any
funding shake-ups.
29. Having said this, it is very important that SP
services are not totally mainstreamed or there is a risk that the learnings of
Supporting People commissioners may be lost.
The targeted SP system meant that commissioners gained a very broad view
of the needs of vulnerable people. We
are concerned that if SP commissioning is too heavily mainstreamed into
existing local authority departments, the learning gained may be lost, which
may lead to the commissioning of unsustainable and unsuitable services. In particular, we are concerned that
procurement departments will push for contracts to be awarded on the basis of
price at the expense of quality. When
dealing with vulnerable people, quality should never be compromised.
30. In order to remain viable, service providers will
also need to adapt to the changing requirements of SP commissioners. In recent years, there has been a trend away
from commissioning low-support accommodation (as many local authorities now
have in-house floating support services) towards commissioning higher support
assessment and short-stay accommodation to meet more pressing demands. Centrepoint is therefore looking at
reconfiguring its services, placing a greater emphasis on high support services
to meet the needs of local authority commissioners.
31. However, the trend away from SP commissioners
funding low support services will inevitably lead to a gap in provision at that
end of the market. Providers of high
support services may therefore find it difficult to find lower support move-on
options for clients progressing on from their services. To meet this need, Centrepoint is looking at
buying up housing stock (separate from the SP programme) which will be linked
with low level support services to give the young people we work with somewhere
to progress on to.
32. Unfortunately, however, not all Registered
Social Landlords (RSLs) will be able to embark on such initiatives as many are
not in the same healthy financial position as Centrepoint and are already
having to cope with big debts. The
Government should therefore ensure that more resources are made available for
the Homes and Communities Agency to fund the construction of move-on
accommodation. Grant rates for RSLs should
also be improved so there will be less risk for them to engage in such low
support projects. It may also be
helpful to procure capital developments along with support services so RSLs
have the added incentive to develop. Otherwise
lack of provision of low support services is likely to become an increasingly
big problem.
Q
- What opportunities does this change in the funding mechanism offer for
innovation and improvement in the delivery of housing-related support services?
33. The main opportunity that
the removal of the ring fence provides is for the commissioning of more
holistic and joined up services. The
flexibility that the area based grant system allows will mean that local
authorities can use SP funding to create a more holistic package of support
based on local need.
34. This may give
organisations such as Centrepoint the opportunity to gain SP funding to provide
a more holistic service for its clients.
At present, Centrepoint's services are only judged on certain set outcome
measures, but a more holistic view of SP funding could allow the wide variety
of work that Centrepoint does to be recognised. This may allow Centrepoint to expand its non-housing related
services, such as employment, drug and alcohol, and counselling services, so
that we as an organisation can better meet the needs of the homeless young
people we work with.
35. The removal of the
ring fence could also provide the opportunity for the SP programme to do more
prevention work, which would be incredibly valuable in addressing disadvantage
and vulnerability in the long-term. If
funding were directed towards schemes to prevent youth homelessness,
re-offending and teenage pregnancy, it could help young people avoid becoming
vulnerable adults by helping them build the necessary skills and resilience to
effectively live independently in mainstream society. For example, Centrepoint believes that more should be done to intervene
with at-risk families where there is a risk of the young person becoming
homeless. Such schemes have had
significant success in helping young people remain in the family, and for those
that cannot stay at home, maintaining family relationships often helps young
people to maintain their own tenancies more effectively as they can turn to
their families for advice and support.
Conclusion
36. The Supporting
People programme has greatly improved the amount of support available for
vulnerable groups. SP funding works
most effectively where strong links are built between different services and
different local authorities to build a coherent package of support. Creating such joined up working should
therefore be a key objective for all SP commissioners. The SP programme could also help providers
give a better service by providing longer-term funding contracts and
streamlining the reporting requirements on them.
37. It is too early to
tell what impact the removal of the ring fence will have, but it will likely
mean that providers will need to adapt their services to meet changing
demands. Although Centrepoint has some
concerns about the gaps this may leave in provision, we embrace the challenge
of updating our services to meet shifting needs. Furthermore, we believe that the flexibility of the new system
could create the opportunity for more prevention work and a more holistic view
of service provision for vulnerable young people.
May
2009
