|
Memorandum from Catch22 (SPP 94)
Summary · The Supporting People (SP) programme has delivered real and tangible benefits to young people and their communities since it began in 2003. SP provides a preventative service, which can help young people[1] with complex needs move into independent living.
· We have some concerns about the impact of the removal of the ring fence. We are concerned that funding currently used for housing services may be channelled into other local needs that may appear more immediately pressing in a period of tighter local government spending. We fear this will have adverse long-term consequences for young people across a wide range of outcomes.
· We are particularly concerned about the impact on young people who are not linked to a statutory service and who do not fall into the categories of young adults whose progress is being tracked under the Public Service Agreement on socially excluded adults (PSA 16).[2] Despite not meeting the four criteria outlined in PSA 16, many young people have complex and changing needs. They remain at risk of being socially excluded and often require housing support as they transition into adulthood and independence. Under the new arrangements there may be pressure on local authorities to cut support that is currently provided to this group through SP.
· Another significant group that could lose out are young adult offenders who are not under statutory supervision by the probation service. A safe and stable place to live is one of the essential factors in preventing reoffending and while these offenders are not under statutory supervision currently, if they are not able to access housing support, it could have a damaging effect on community safety as well as their own well-being.
· We are also concerned that young adults in general may lose out, as funding for young people's services is amalgamated with budgets for mainstream adult services. We know young people between 16 and 25 have distinct and acute support needs, which require tailored interventions.
· There is a risk that providing funding for SP services through local area based grants will reduce the incentive to work across local authority boundaries and across regions e.g. providing placements for young people who need to exit gangs by moving to another area of the UK.
· To ensure the sustainability of vital housing services the Government should consider: o Better measurement of the wider outcomes of SP services e.g. the impact of preventative housing support on future health costs, criminal justice costs and homelessness statistics. Local authorities should report on monies spent on preventative services for those not in contact with statutory agencies and monitor correlations with regard to take up of statutory services, particularly homelessness applications. o Making the national indicators relating to Supporting People (NI 141 and 142) a priority for all Local Authorities. o Ring-fencing a smaller pot of money to provide services for those most vulnerable to social exclusion, before they come under the remit of statutory services.
· Catch22 is supportive of the new plans to increase flexibility of SP funding and possibility for more joint commissioning of services because this could increase the capacity and sustainability of a whole range of services for young people, and allow us to provide more holistic services.
· Catch22 also fully supports the emphasis on greater involvement of young people and putting them at the heart of the SP programme. Our experience shows time and again that this is a crucial aspect of achieving better outcomes for young people. Main Submission
1 To what extent has the Government delivered on commitments it made in Independence and Opportunity: Our Strategy for Supporting Young People?
1.1 The Supporting People (SP) programme has delivered real and tangible benefits to young people and their communities since it began in 2003. It has been of significant benefit to young people who would otherwise come under the remit of statutory services[3]. The programme has enabled Catch22 and other charities to help young people out of all sorts of situations. For those young people not linked to any statutory agency, SP provision reduces the likelihood of slipping into homelessness, alcohol and drug misuse and poverty. These factors greatly increase the likelihood of suffering emotional and/or mental health problems and committing crime and anti-social behaviour.
1.2 Supporting People has delivered particular benefits for care leavers. Young people and care leavers are especially vulnerable to homelessness. In England, 16/17 year olds and care leavers aged 18-20 make up 8% of the total homelessness acceptances yet only represent 3% of the total population[4]. Through SP valuable resources can be targeted at young people leaving care, supporting their transition to adulthood and independence and providing longer term support for those with enduring needs[5].
1.3 The white paper Care Matters identifies that for young people in care the move to adulthood is often more difficult. Young people in care are expected to take on the responsibilities of being more independent far earlier and far more quickly than their peers, experiencing a compressed and accelerated transition to adulthood[6]. Significant additional and varied support is needed to support this compressed transition to adulthood. For care leavers aged 16 and 17 SP has led to the development of increased choice in services that provide accommodation and/or support and allowed greater flexibility of provision.
1.4 The Government's policy is that young people should remain in care until their 18th birthday and that there should be opportunities for young people to remain in supportive settings as long as possible. The National Care Advisory Service (NCAS) expects that legislative and policy initiatives such as the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 and the review of related guidance will increase the importance of services utilised by care leavers aged over 18. It is therefore vital that funding for the services provided through SP can continue.
1.5 Fortunately the emphasis placed on care leavers within the recent PSA and local indicator framework should support the continued provision of these vital services. We are therefore optimistic that funding for housing support for care leavers will continue.
1.6 One of the key benefits of SP funding has been that it has enabled the wider provision of services, beyond just those falling into recognised categories - e.g. "homeless", "care leaver" etc. Through SP we have been able to provide preventative services to young people to support them into independent living and divert them from the many potential risks associated with homelessness. Working with young people in this way provides long term cost savings and stops them slipping into homelessness in the future.
1.7 Preventing homelessness is crucial for long-term outcomes of young people. Often youth homelessness is hidden by 'sofa surfing' until it surfaces as a problem later and so there is a need for greater support that does not stigmatise young people who for one reason or another cannot live any longer in the family home. The link between homelessness and mental health problems, substance misuse or crime is well documented. The 'knock on' effects of homelessness can be particularly damaging for young people. The peak age of offending is 19 years old (the peak age of desistance is 24)[7]. Thus the peak age of offending coincides with a time of vulnerability to homelessness as young people move from the family home into independent living and adopting adult responsibilities such as a job, a stable relationship and perhaps parental responsibilities.
2. Consider the implications of the removal of the ring-fence
2.1 The removal of the ring fence presents both opportunities and risks for the future of housing related support services to young people. There are four key risks associated with removal of the ring fence on funding.
2.2 The first is that other services will be given priority over housing support in allocating the area based grant. Providing housing support to promote independence may not immediately appear to be important when compared to the other issues local authorities face, but we believe its wider impact on young people's long term outcomes should make it a priority. We fear, that particularly in the current climate of tighter government spending, preventative services may be squeezed with lasting and damaging long term impacts.
2.3 The second is that, even if overall funds for housing support remain at a similar level, younger people, particularly those aged 16 to 25, may lose out as a squeeze on funds leads to the 'decanting' of specialist youth provision into adult provision. This would be damaging as providing tailored housing and independent living support in this key transition age can have lasting implications for life.[8]
2.4 The third risk is that the removal of the ring fence may lead local authorities to focus their funding for housing support only on those young people who are specifically linked to statutory agencies or who are prioritised by PSA 16 i.e. 'those who are measured'. We fear that new housing support contracts provided by local authorities will be restricted to categorised areas of need e.g. 'people receiving mental health services'. This could impact young people who are not linked to a statutory agency, who make up a significant proportion of the young people using Catch 22's services. Often these young people's needs are still being assessed and many problems that may 'come home to roost' in the late teens/early 20s have not yet been identified. An example of such a young person would be someone with a dependency on alcohol and cannabis who is not in contact with drug treatment services as their dependency is not deemed serious enough, but may still be seriously damaging their life chances, and could be combined with a range of other needs including family breakdown, early fatherhood, poor mental health and mild learning difficulties. We have yet to be assured that the new SP provisions would enable councils to provide housing support for someone in this situation.
2.5 We are concerned that if support for young people facing these difficult situations, but not yet falling into a specific, measured "category, is removed, there will be a negative impact on the wider community. For example if support is removed from young offenders who are not under probation supervision, the impacts can be catastrophic. The net benefit of housing support for young offenders is enormous. Stable and secure housing can cut reoffending rates by up to 30% and make communities safer. In the CLG strategy paper 'Independence and Opportunity[9]' reference is made to the impact SP has had on reducing reoffending. We want to ensure this positive impact remains.
2.6 Finally, there is a risk that local authorities will not have an incentive to work across local authority boundaries and across regions, when the funds for SP are absorbed into the area based grants, as there may be greater incentives to use funds for other local priorities. We recommend the government looks at ways in which local authorities can work together effectively across regions e.g. when people need to find safe housing in another area. In dealing with gangs we have found young people often need to be transferred to another area so they can exit the gang safely. There needs to be provision and budget flexibility for 'swapping' in order to ensure young people can move on.
3. What needs to be done to ensure the successes of the programme so far are not lost or services cut?
3.1 We recommend that national indicators 141 and 142 relating to SP are made compulsory indicators for every local authority. This would ensure that the aims of SP remain at the forefront of local planning and commissioning of services rather than being allowed to slip down the agenda. The impact of national and local political leadership cannot be underestimated. PSA 16 is a good example of how leadership and priority setting has changed practice on the ground.
3.2 We also recommend the retention of a ring fence around a smaller pot of funding for vulnerable people at risk of requiring statutory services. This would help ensure those most vulnerable are supported before problems become entrenched and homelessness occurs. We are clear that during a time when all local authority budgets are under pressure, ring fencing a small amount for the very vulnerable could be the best option for encouraging preventative services and protecting those who most need support.
2.7 We also recommend that the Government develops new ways of measuring the outcomes of housing related support, particularly amongst young people. We note the Government's recognition that SP has contributed to outcomes across the board including criminal justice savings and health savings for example[10]. Measuring these benefits will be important if we are to properly evidence the success of SP.
2.8 It is essential that the wider impacts of housing related support for young people are recognised. For example, a stable and safe home is essential in order for young people to learn or earn a living and there is good evidence in the education, employment and training field that being unemployed under the age of 24 has a more devastating impact than the same length of unemployment later in life[11]. In the context of recent government legislation on young people remaining in education or training up to 18 (and the hope that many will continue in education beyond this) it will therefore be increasingly important that there is adequate housing provision, and related support, for these young adults[12].
3.3 New means must be developed to ensure adequate monitoring of outcomes outside of housing. The Government should ask local authorities to report on monies invested in preventative services for vulnerable people not currently in contact with statutory services. The Government could then monitor if there is any correlation between monies invested and take up of statutory services.
3.4 We would also like to see monitoring of housing provision and support for young people at key transitions time (16-25) and the correlation between this support and homelessness applications. Monitoring would have both an immediate effect as services adapt to meet the criteria against which they will be judged, and a lasting effect in providing a greater evidence base on what works.
4. What opportunities this change in funding will offer?
4.1 Catch22 welcomes the opportunities to better help young people that may arise from the ring fence removal. We are positive about the opportunities to tailor services to meet young people's needs in the round, through joint commissioning. Joint commissioning and new flexibilities will give service providers the scope to be innovative and respond to local needs. The young people we work with have a range of complex needs and require specialist help with various issues e.g. substance misuse, unemployment, lack of education and training, and lack of family support. Joint commissioning of services could help us work with young people in a more flexible and holistic way. Our experience on the ground tells us that more young people are experiencing complex problems than ever before and that greater levels of support are needed.
4.2 We welcome moves to put service users at the heart of the SP programme going forward. We were the first national voluntary organisation to adopt the NYA 'Hear by Right' framework for involving children and young people. Sustained and effective service-user involvement is crucial for the success of any programme. Putting service-user involvement at the heart provides new opportunities for speedy innovation that responds to local need. The challenge is to ensure this service-user involvement is consistent and meaningful but also that commissioners support providers in delivering new innovative models based on outcomes.
May 2009 [1] In this submission we use the term young people and young adults interchangeably to refer to people between 16 and 25. [2] PSA 16 covers Care Leavers at age 19; Offenders under probation supervision; Adults receiving secondary mental health services; Adults with learning disabilities known to Councils. [3] For a list of supporting people services see http://www.spdirectory.org.uk/DirectoryServices/Public/HomeDC.aspx?CTM0=PUBLIC-WELCOME [4] Joint working between Housing and Children's services, DCSF May 2008. [5] National Care Advisory Service (NCAS). [6] Stein M (2006), Research Review, Young People Leaving Care, Child and Family Social Work 11 (2006) [7] A Guide to the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales, Home Office, RDS, 1998 [8] Universities of Crime, T2A Alliance, 2009 [9] CLG, Independence and Opportunity: Our Strategy for Supporting People, 2007 [10] CLG, Independence and Opportunity, 2007 [11] Prof P Gregg, University of Bristol. [12] Education and Skills Act, 2008 |