Memorandum from Martin Bellinger Cherchefelle (SPP 84)

 

Summary.

 

· Keeping People that need Services at the heart of the programme

 

History clearly shows that unless funding is ring fenced for its intended recipients they will be the first to lose it.

 

 

1. The legacy of pre supporting people funding can be tracked back for many years but in effect stems from services provided by Councils after the second world war to provide accommodation for single people who fell through the statutory provision net.

 

2. In the 1950's Central Government took control of these services because of the variable quality and, in some areas, total absence of facilities for single homeless people. Councils saw single homeless people as being "on the road", not from the locality and at best provided 3 nights stay in a hostel before moving them onto the next area where the pattern would be repeated.

 

3. Government took on responsibility for either the direct provision of, or grant aid to provide, accommodation for single unsettled, homeless people to establish how best the needs of such people could be met and a longer term aim of disentangling central government from the direct provision of such services in the future (similar to the Care in the Community programme which also had its roots in the 1950's.)

 

4. The Government inherited some very dilapidated hostels from Local Councils but began the process of improving quality of service and accommodation for individuals that fell through the statutory net.

 

5. The introduction of the Housing Corporations Hostel Deficit Grant (HDG), the Home Offices Probation Accommodation Grant (PAGS) , Depts of Environment (SEC 37) and Health ( Registered Care) grant funding added to the pot for this group along the way.

 

6. The combining of such grants into the Supporting People pot and the sizing of this pot under Transitional Housing Benefit opened the door to include client groups who should have been provided for by statutory authorities anyway(e.g. sheltered elderly) and opened the floodgates to some Authorities to maximise their share. However, the ring fencing of this funding ensured that the single homeless were provided for and now brought into the local arena for services

 

7. As the value of this support has slowly been eaten away year on year so the client group it was originally intended for has begun to lose its benefits. We are already seeing the consequences of this through Local Authorities refusing to accept a local connection for housing and other statutory services, limiting stays at hostels for homeless people to 3 nights before moving on to the next area and cutting funding to the third sector who are providing the services

 

8. The warning signs are clear that the removal of the ring fencing will lead to the loss of services for those very people the funding was targeted to provide for.

 

May 2009