|
Memorandum from Communities and Local Government (SPP 110)
The attached memorandum sets out the work undertaken by CLG on the development and delivery of the Supporting People programme. The memorandum includes information on
· Introduction to the Supporting people Programme · Changes in context and policy since the Supporting People programme was introduced in 2003 · The history of Supporting People · The Supporting People National Strategy and how CLG have delivered on the commitments set out in the strategy: o Keeping people that need services at the heart of the Programme o Enhancing partnership with the Third Sector o Delivering in the new Local Government landscape o Increasing efficiency and reducing bureaucracy
· Removal of the Supporting People programme ring-fence Supporting People Distribution Formula
Introduction
1. Supporting People is a grant programme that funds housing related support services, which are administered through all 152 top tier authorities in partnership with Housing, Health, Adult Social Care Services and Probation, and is delivered largely by the Third Sector.
2. Supporting People began on the 7th April 2003, bringing together nine housing related support funding streams from across Whitehall for the first time. From its very beginning Supporting People's main aim was to help end social exclusion and to enable vulnerable people to maintain or to achieve their independence. This was through the provision of vital housing related support which would enable them to maintain a suitable and stable independent home within local communities
3. Supporting People has proved successful in providing a clarity and focus to support services across England that was rarely in place before its inception. Supporting People tackles poverty, disadvantage and social exclusion, and by preventing crises before they occur, avoids more costly intervention such as long-term hospital admission.
4. In 2003-04 the Supporting Programme grant allocation to Local Authorities was £1.8bn. In 2010-11 the indicative allocation is £1.6bn. In 2004, an independent review, carried out by Robson and Rhodes examined whether the Supporting People programme was providing value for money. The review concluded that there was evidence that the distribution of funding was uneven between similar authorities, and that there was some evidence that elements of SP spend could more properly fall to other Departments. The review concluded that £1.8bn was too much to spend on the services then being provided. It also identified inefficiencies in the programme which we have since taken action to rectify.
5. The Government has invested over £8.7bn since the programme began in 2003; and announced a further £4.9bn funding up to 31 March 2011. It is the biggest single source of Government revenue funding for the Third Sector - standing at over £1bn per year.
6. In addition to the SP Programme grant all SP Administering Authorities were allocated an SP administration grant as a contribution towards the set up and delivery costs of the programme. From 2007/08 the Administration grant has been incorporated in-to the Area Based Grant.
7. Supporting People is an invest to save budget - the expenditure of £1.54bn in housing related support services, alongside other expenditure costs associated with supporting vulnerable people, such as housing and social care costs, delivers an estimated net annual saving of £2.77bn to the exchequer.
8. Supporting People helps around 1 million people at any one time, and the types of support it provides include:
· help to develop life skills, such as understanding a tenancy agreement, budgeting or cooking, which enables vulnerable people to have an independent lifestyle;
· support in accessing services and benefits, for example, helping an older person to claim benefits or helping an ex-offender to register with a GP or dentist;
· support in accessing training and employment, for example, helping a young person to find work for the first time;
· support through warden and alarm services, these services provide reassurance and a more cost effective method of support to vulnerable groups, such as older people, victims of domestic violence and people with disabilities.
Changes in context and policy since 2003
9. In the run up to the launch of the Supporting People programme in 2003/04, there was an increased level of claims for Housing Benefit in respect of housing related support under the Transitional Housing Benefit (THB) Regulations. These regulations had been put in place following a court judgment (see below) around the appropriateness of paying for this support from Housing Benefit, and were designed to allow Housing Benefit to continue to meet housing related support costs until the new scheme came into place. The level of these claims and awards (which were adjudicated by Housing Benefit Officers) varied from authority to authority. Initial Supporting People funding allocations to Authorities were set in exact proportion to the levels of residual funding from other relevant grant schemes (including those paid by the Housing Corporation and Probation Service) as well as the annualized level of Housing Benefit being paid (for which equivalent provision was required to be made under the new grant arrangements). .
10. As part of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) 2004 settlement HM Treasury (HMT) stipulated that we needed to agree an allocation mechanism that moved away from the largely unplanned legacy distribution pattern of funding towards one far better aligned with distribution of need. The CSR07 settlement letter from HMT agreed indicative allocations for the next 3 years (2008/09 - 2010/11) based on a limited implementation of the "needs" distribution formula but further emphasised the requirement to accelerate the process to reflect need.
11. In 2005/06 Local Area Agreements (LAAs) were introduced and it was agreed SP could be included in the five Local Authorities piloting the process. As the LAAs evolved to focus on delivery of priorities rather than funding streams, they were identified as an opportunity to test the "mainstreaming" of Supporting People services while retaining the ringfence and the existing legal framework. The two SP indicators (NI141 and 142) have since been included in the basket of National Indicators used to monitor Local Authorities performance.
12. The inclusion of Supporting People into the Area Based Grant in 2010/11, brings together a range of funding streams, to provide Local Authorities with a mechanism to fund housing related support services through a single grant, thereby furthering the mainstreaming of SP. This would require SP to be unringfenced.
History of Supporting People
13. In 1998 the then Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) published a consultation paper on a new policy and funding framework for providing housing related support services for vulnerable people, entitled Supporting People: A new policy and funding framework for support services[1]. This came in the context of a 1997 High Court ruling restricting the use of Housing Benefit for such services, and of a wider policy agenda of expanding the community leadership role of local authorities in providing or commissioning such services. Local authorities would be mobilised and involved to take on a new role, based on five-year strategies and mapping of existing provision. In 1998 an approximate estimate of projected costs for the Supporting People grant was set at £350-750 million. In October 2003 the final calculated amount came in for the financial 2003-4 year at £1.8 billion. This was the sum passed on in grants to local authorities in 2003-04.
The programme vision
14. The vision behind the programme, of bringing together at local level better integrated and more securely funded housing related services for vulnerable people, commanded general support, and still does. It is intended to help many categories of people - older people who wish to remain living independently or are moving back home after time in hospital; people in sheltered housing of many kinds; those with learning difficulties or mental health problems who wish to live with greater or lesser degrees of support in the community; homeless people; victims of domestic violence; teenage mothers; those leaving prison; and others in need of support.
The Independent review
15. In October 2003 however, the Treasury and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) commissioned an independent review of the Supporting People programme from Robson Rhodes, in view of the substantial rise in the 2003-04 cost of the programme from the projections made in December 2002. The review was asked to "gauge the true picture of how the funding is being utilised" and had to report swiftly enough to be able to inform SP grant allocations for the coming financial year.
16. The Independent Review was asked to consider:
· variations between local authorities' costs and patterns of service provision; · services previously paid out of other budgets where it is unclear how the resulting savings have been re-deployed; and · whether the programme is meeting its original objectives, including schemes, which raise questions about compliance with grant conditions.
17. The review process included consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and was overseen by a steering group with broad representation.
Outcome
18. The Robson Rhodes report[2] was published in February 2004. It made recommendations in four broad areas: improvements in high costs authorities, the 2004/5 Supporting People allocation and distribution, future allocations, and growth. It concluded that the £1.8bn was "too much to pay" for the legacy provision, but not too much for the needs of the vulnerable groups.
19. The Robson Rhodes independent review and the requirement stipulated by HMT in the CSR04 settlement letter impacted and influenced the future delivery arrangements for SP in a number of areas including:-
· need to identify ineligible expenditure (which should be borne by other departments) which was being paid by Administering Authorities from SP Grant,
· need to develop a distribution formula that allocated resources based on need rather than legacy services;
· need to develop a tool to identify the benefits that accrue to other budgets e.g. care and support from the provision of housing related support;
· need to work with Local Authorities to identify and secure efficiency savings. 20. The publication of the Local Government White paper [3] setting out the new relationship between Central and Local government, the introduction of Local Area Agreements, the Area Based Grant funding mechanism and the new performance framework, which also had implications for the future delivery of the programme. However, it should be noted that because the Supporting People programme is locally delivered and is a managed programme, with Local Authorities commissioning services to meet local needs and priorities, it therefore was already delivering on this relationship element of the White Paper.
Supporting People National Strategy
21. In 2005 the Department recognised the need for a national strategy for two reasons: first; in light of the newly proposed Local Government Framework and the move to Local Area Agreements with changes to the reporting, policing and funding arrangements of devolved programmes, and second; the need to improve housing related support services - A consultation document was published in November 2005 entitled:
· Creating Sustainable Communities: Supporting Independence[4] [5]
22. The key questions asked in the consultation exercise focussed on the following four key themes:-
· supporting people in its strategic context; · focusing and integrating support; · funding; · administering the programme; · esupporting people.
The questions set out in the consultation document are listed at Annex B
23. The consultation process was completed in March 2006, and gave CLG the opportunity to consider the direction of the programme and to look at Supporting People in the broader context of the role of local government and the provision of adult social care. A key part of the consultation exercise was user involvement: an easy read version of the consultation document was produced, and events with service users, service providers and local authorities were held from November 2005 until March 2006. As part of the strategy development and consultation process CLG also set up an expert reference group and sounding board group bringing together representatives from across the sector.
24. Preliminary conclusions from the consultation process were set out in a range of documents[6]. The main conclusions were:_
· agreement that SP services were an essential part of meeting the needs of the most vulnerable and that more emphasis should be placed on the preventative role of housing related support; · a need to involve service users directly as decisions are taken which affect their services and lives; · agreement that a move towards a more outcomes focus for the programme and for Government to lead on the development of a national outcomes framework; · a need for certainty and clarity on future funding and to show caution about integrating SP funding into LAAs; · a need for the retention of the Commissioning Body as a focal point for SP and to not lose the skills and knowledge from the learning review process; · an agreement that the VCS has an important role to play in the delivery of SP services; · and to provide support through encouraging LAs to apply Compact and full cost recovery principles in contracting services with the VCS.
25. The final publication of the Supporting People strategy focussed on the following areas:
· Keeping people that need services at the heart of the Programme; · Enhancing partnership with the Third Sector; · Delivering in the new Local Government landscape; · Increasing efficiency and reducing bureaucracy.
26. Within the strategy and as part of the "delivering in the new Local Government Landscape" CLG committed to support local authorities and their delivery partners in moving towards delivering Supporting People funds through the new Area Based Grant from April 2009. In order to do so required the removal of the ringfence from the Supporting People programme.
27. In summary the SP programme has evolved and developed to move from a legacy based allocation of resource, to one which better reflects the needs of the local authority. This builds on the relationship with the Third Sector to support the government commitment to them, and to support the sector as the programme is included within the new Local Government funding structures.
28. We understand that the Committee's inquiry will consider the extent to which Government has so far delivered on the commitments in the strategy and will also consider the implications of the removal of the ringfence.
29. This memorandum is structured in three parts. Part A provides and introduction to the Supporting People programme, Part B will address the commitments set out in the Supporting People strategy and Part C will set out the work undertaken to support the decision to remove the ringfence from the Supporting People programme grant. Attached are a number of annexes including Annex A which provides information on the Supporting People Distribution Formula. Annex C further information on the pathfinder process. Part B Chapter 1
Keeping people that need services at the heart of the Programme
30. The department has been looking at a number of ways in which we could support service users by focusing on how we can reduce the need to provide information more than once, be sure that the services they receive are of an appropriate standard and what services are available to them. How we can support local authorities to assess the future needs in their area; demonstrate the value of the programme through outcomes and how services could be delivered to support the personalisation and choice agenda is of critical importance and in taking this work forward we have been mindful of the need to reduce the burden on Local Authorities.
Key priorities:-
· to develop a national outcomes framework to demonstrate how housing related support is enabling service users to achieve their goals and live independently ; · review the Quality Assessment Framework (QAF) to ensure it remains fit for purpose and develop a version of the QAF to support service users who decide to have Individual Budgets; · take forward work to ensure future needs requirements are being assessed and appropriate services commissioned; · the implementation of pilots to demonstrate how the most vulnerable clients with complex needs can be helped to maintain a tenancy and live independently
Key delivery partners
· CLG have worked with umbrella organisations, representatives from local authorities, providers and services users to take forward the key priorities .
Outcomes for service users
31. An example of this was the Supporting People Outcomes Framework which we successfully launched in May 2007. The SP framework is one of a few frameworks which is able to evidence if service user needs have been met or not whilst in receipt of Supporting People services.
32. A key criteria of the outcomes framework is that service users have support plans which clearly identify their housing support needs and they are involved in the development of the support plan including agreeing the outcomes identified which are personal to them. The result has been greater control and choice of which service people wish to access.
33. Equally the Supporting People Outcomes Framework has provided valuable information to enable local authorities to analyse the effectiveness of different services and see how effective they are in delivering outcomes for vulnerable socially excluded groups.
34. In order to further the commitment to keep service users at the heart of the programme the department agreed that Supporting People should be one of the six funding streams included in the Individual Budgets (IBs) pilots. The IB pilots were led by the Department of Health working with CLG and Department for Work and Pensions/ Office of Disability Issues. CLG have formed a working group to develop some tools[7] to support authorities to explore the options available.
Quality Assessment Framework (QAF)
35. The Quality Assessment Framework (QAF) measures the quality of housing support services and is regarded as one of Supporting People's successes. CLG have worked with umbrella organisations and Local Authorities to review and update the QAF to take account of changes in service delivery. In addition an 'Easy to Read' QAF has promoted greater choice and control in use of services by service users.
Analysis of needs
36. Important to the future of Supporting People services will be the ability to predict the needs of service users in the future, particularly those who are at most risk, and put in place preventative services.
37. CLG have worked with St Andrews University to develop and launch an online reporting facility which provides access to both Client Record and Outcomes data, and tools to analyse it, at a local, regional and national level. The facility was successfully launched in Autumn 2007.
38. CLG commissioned work on predictive risk modelling work by the King's Fund to identify those at risk of needing care a year early and who would therefore benefit from preventative interventions. The Department of Health is funding pilot work being undertaken by Nuffield.
39. CLG jointly commissioned research with the Housing Corporation and Care Services Improvement Partnership (CSIP) in 2008 to explore investment in housing related support for vulnerable groups within the context of the new regional framework.
40. CLG published 'Needs Analysis-Commissioning and Procurement for housing related support'[8] jointly with CSIP/Housing Learning Improvement Network (LIN) last summer, and jointly branded their publication 'Commissioning housing related support for health and well-being'. CLG are also linked into the National Programme for Third Sector Commissioning run by IDeA,
Adults Facing Chronic Exclusion (ACE)
41. A
practical demonstration on how the department is working to identify and
facilitate the delivery of a wide range of services to meet the needs of more
difficult to reach client groups is exemplified by the ACE pilots. The
Pilots work closely with people who receive or are eligible for support from
Supporting People teams and examines how housing related support can help them
to maintain a tenancy and live independently.
The Pilots have focussed on how to construct a package of care, of which
SP is a part, so that health, community and employment services can work
together to improve their life chances. 42. The Pilots will also contribute to the Supporting People Capgemini Financial Benefits study to demonstrate how positive outcomes can be achieved through SP and related services through improved co-ordination and reduced reliance on emergency care.
43. The ACE Programme[9] is a 3 year, £6million fund designed to test new approaches to tackling chronic social exclusion amongst the most marginalised people in society.
44. Twelve pilots have been funded across England to test ways to improve outcomes for adults with chaotic lives and multiple needs through developing new types of intervention and changing local service provision. They are led by public sector and third sector organisations, working in partnership with other local agencies.
45. The sponsoring Government Departments are the Home Office, Communities and Local Government, Department of Health and Department for Work and Pensions. Each has pledged £1.5million over the next three years for the pilots.
46. Adults facing chronic exclusion will experience:
· Poor health prospects - mental and/or physical health issues; · A history of exclusion, institutionalisation or abuse; · Behaviour and control difficulties; · Skills deficit - unemployment and poor educational achievement.
47. The client group is estimated by the Revolving Doors Agency to be 60,000 people in England.
Lifetime Homes and Lifetime Neighbourhoods - National Housing Strategy for an Ageing Society
48. Demographics show that the Older Population is ageing and increasing. Supporting People provides services to a wide range of client groups including older people to enable them to live independently in their own home. Services provided may include alarm systems, handypersons services and generic floating support.
49. The Department has been at the forefront of work on Older People which is demonstrated by the publication of Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods: A National Strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society[10] which was launched by the Prime Minister on 25 February 2008. Our ageing population is one of the great challenges for housing and planning. This strategy, the first of its kind, is the Government's response to meet this major challenge.
50. This cross-government strategy addresses older people's housing needs and aspirations and outlines our plans for ensuring that there is enough appropriate housing available in future to relieve forecasted unsustainable pressures on homes, health and social care services.
51. It includes a range of measures to bring about a fundamental change in the way we build future communities alongside an expansion in existing support available to older people, that will help them to live safely and, where they choose, independently in their own homes.
52. A total of £35million in additional funding will be provided to meet these objectives from 2009.
53. Key measures included in the strategy to address older people's housing needs are:
· Expansion of handyperson services -investment of £33m over two years for simple repairs and adaptations from 2009 (e.g. fitting hand rails or fixing a stair carpet, light or leaking tap, home safety checks built in and access to other help).
· Maintaining independence by adapting homes as older people grow older: £460 million allocated over 3 years enabling more people to adapt their homes such as installing stair lifts, walk in showers and wider doors to their homes now - helping them stay mobile and live independently for longer. This is a 30% increase in the national budget for adaptations through the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) provision.
· CLG is funding FirstStop, a new advice and information service for older people, their families and carers. FirstStop Advice is a free, independent phone and website service covering housing, care and finance in later life. FirstStop is also available to professionals working in the relevant fields / with this client group. FirstStop is developing local partnerships with councils, home improvement agencies and other providers of support to older people.
· Building accessible and easily adaptable homes: a new aspiration of all new homes by 2013 built to Lifetime Home standards, (e.g. wider doors, level access, more convenient sockets.) This will apply to all public sector housing by 2011.
· Encouraging the development of Lifetime Neighbourhoods: actions include use of the Olympic Village to promote inclusive design for homes and neighbourhood; CLG will promote exemplary inclusive design through Eco- towns and will commission practical guidance to support this; CLG will also work with volunteer local authorities and partner organisations, to identify and share good practice in turning existing neighbourhoods into lifetime neighbourhoods.
54. There is a rigorous and detailed action plan in the strategy which will be translated into practical action on the ground - enabling change for the better for older people's housing and services. CLG published a delivery plan[11] for the strategy on 23 December 2008 giving a comprehensive update on progress against the strategy actions.
Single Assessment Framework
55. CLG have been working with the Department of Health who have specifically included references to Supporting People and housing in their consultation paper "the Common Assessment Framework for Adults"[12]. The issues around piloting a joined up needs assessment process and form will for the most part be tested by Rochdale who have received funding from Department of Health to pilot an information sharing arrangement between health, social care and other key partners, including Supporting People and housing.
56. The development of Charters for Independent living was intended to provide service users with information on the standards and accessibility of service they should expect from Supporting People providers. However, it was agreed that the work on Charters for Independent Living linked to the "Communities in control White Paper" and the work will be taken forward in that context.
57. CLG had also committed to undertake further work on the Directory of Services. However, as part of the requirement to reduce data burdens on local authorities a decision was taken in December 2008 to discontinue the National Directory of Services (DOS) from June 2008.
Chapter 2
Enhancing partnership with the Third Sector 1.
58. The Office of the Third Sector (OTS) was created at the centre of Government in May 2006 in recognition of the increasingly important role the third sector plays in both society and the economy. The OTS leads work across government to support the environment for a thriving third sector (voluntary and community groups, social enterprises, charities, cooperatives and mutuals), enabling the sector to campaign for change, deliver public services, promote social enterprise and strengthen communities.
59. The SP services being provided today are largely built on services that were being provided by the third sector before the SP programme was introduced. SP third sector service providers traditionally have delivered services to some of the harder to reach, vulnerable client groups who often have multiple needs but who shy away from services provided by the "establishment".
60. CLG will continue to work with the OTS and national umbrella organisations to support the third sector to ensure that they are able to survive in the current economic climate and can respond to the changing agenda.
Key priorities
· support small providers to develop partnership and collaborative working practice; · work with umbrella organisations to ensure their members are able to respond to the changing agenda; · work with the Office of the Third Sector as we develop guidance to ensure consistency of message and build on existing practice.
Key delivery partners
· Office of the Third Sector; · umbrella membership organisations who have a strong policy influence in the sector and can feedback the view of providers and service users.
Office of the Third Sector (OTS)
61. CLG and the OTS consulted on the third sector elements of the Supporting People Strategy, which incorporated references to the OTS Third Sector Action Plan. The two organisations have worked closely on raising awareness amongst commissioners of the unique needs of small and medium-sized supported housing providers. CLG have also had input into the National Programme for Third Sector Commissioning which is run by OTS and IDeA.
62. In the strategy CLG we said we will continue to work with national organisations such as the National Housing Federation (NHF), Housing Association Charitable Trust (hact), Foundations and Sitra to support and build capacity in the sector. In particular we will provide three year allocations for the programme and will invest in the skills of commissioners to improve commissioning from the third sector.
63. The third sector delivers the majority of SP services. In order to facilitate delivery of greater choice, better value for money and a more professional approach to service delivery the department has announced the allocation of a three year funding settlement to Local Authorities for the SP programme.
How we worked with the third sector
64. Sitra and Hact have been involved with the development of Supporting People from its beginning. They have a strong record in informing policy and a history of constructive and successful working with CLG and other government departments in helping to implement it. In working with the third sector CLG have drawn on the knowledge and expertise of the umbrella organisations in order to develop specific policy and products. For example when local authorities were looking for efficiency savings and made changes to their re-commissioning processes hact worked with small providers to help them maintain their place in the market.
65. As previously mentioned in paragraph 23, the SP Sounding Board and the SP Expert reference group were set up as part of the strategy development and consultation process. Representation across the two groups included umbrella organisations, e.g. Sitra, NHF, providers (small and large), other government department and recognised bodies, i.e. the Local Government Association (LGA). The inclusion of providers on the SP expert reference group is important to inform our understanding of how policy changes will impact on the providers and the front end delivery of the programme.
66. Whilst Foundations/Home Improvement Agencies (HIAs) are not part of the mainstream SP programme, they are important to the delivery of services to help older people stay living safe and independently in their own homes. We will therefore continue to work with Foundations to produce guidance and raise the profile of the work that HIAs do.
Hact
67. Hact is a development agency that acts as a catalyst for change in the housing sector. Working in partnership, they develop and promote solutions for people on the margins of mainstream housing. A key part of Hact's work is to ensure that the issues and concerns of small providers are understood by larger stakeholders, such as government, local authorities and registered social landlords. This is underpinned by a commitment to safe, healthy, vibrant and inclusive neighbourhoods. Over a number of years, in partnership with the Housing Corporation, Hact provided significant support to the emerging black and minority ethnic housing sector. Working with Shelter, Hact also supported the development of the 'care and repair' concept and subsequently the organisation of the same name. Care and Repair continues to support local and regional initiatives, which provide practical handy person support enabling older people to live safely and comfortably in their own homes. 68. CLG provided funding to HACT to take forward work on projects to look at different collaborative approaches to bidding for Supporting People contracts. Collaborate was a year-long project and was delivered in partnership with Sitra and the National Housing Federation. Hact worked with six partnerships pioneering different collaborative approaches to bidding for Supporting People contracts. The resource kit[13] draws on the direct experiences of the partnerships where Hact provided practical help and facilitation including: · working through some of the issues involved in developing collaborative models; · some financial support for the costs of building capacity of some of the smaller partnership members and ; · some legal and expert support costs. 69. In exchange, all participating organisations contributed to an evaluation and facilitated learning process between the partnerships. The project was very successful, with one consortium of smaller providers winning a substantial £1.5m floating support contract in Suffolk. 70. CLG have also provided funding to HACT to enable them to begin work on a specific project which supported and complemented existing work being carried out in house on efficiency savings via the Value Improvement project. The HACT project aimed to develop and test resource sharing models between Supporting People providers, some between larger and smaller providers. The project will fund, support and work with between five and eight partnerships in different local authorities. Each partnership will identify areas where resources can be shared and costs reduced, focusing specifically though not exclusively on infrastructure costs such as ICT, finance, training and professional development, fundraising and office supplies. 71. The project will draw on the learning from the current capacity building work, also funded by CLG, and use similar methodologies of establishing and supporting a network of pilot initiatives, drawing out key learning, and developing a range of resources for wider adoption.
SITRA
72. SITRA is a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee. In addition to grant funding from CLG, they also receive funding from other organisations and income from their training and conferences services. SITRA provides policy advice, capacity building, and a training service to the 6000+ organisations that provide Supporting People services, and helps them link into the 150 local authorities that commission them and contribute to the delivery of CLG's Sustainable Communities and Social Exclusion agenda. 73. SITRA's main objectives are to champion the benefits of support, housing and care services to providers, statutory bodies, carers and users including homeless households and special needs users and to raise standards in the support, housing and care sector. They are the leading specialist in infrastructural resource within the third sector, providing expert advice and guidance to support providers. They also have a record of co-operation with national bodies such as the NHF. Foundations/Home Improvement Agencies 74. CLG sponsors a national body for home improvement agencies, known as Foundations, to support the work of the home improvement agency sector and service commissioners in a number of ways, including :
· providing advice and support to the sector; · promoting and raising the profile of HIAs ; · representing the movement in dealing with government and other stakeholders and; · building capacity within the sector.
75. A new three-year contract for the national body was announced as part of Lifetime homes, lifetime neighbourhoods commitment to the continuing support of the home improvement agency sector. This contract runs from October 2008 to September 2011.
Chapter 3
Delivering in the new Local Government landscape
76. Since the introduction of the SP programme the key relationships have been between Central Government and Local Authorities, in the new Local Government landscape this relationship has changed, and Government Offices have an important role to play in delivery of the SP programme. There are two national Indicators for Supporting People within the new national Indicator set. Due to the cross cutting nature of the programme this means Supporting People can help deliver a number of additional indicators ( See Annex C). Due to the programme essentially being delivered from the centre since 2003 Government Offices require some additional support in order to fully understand Supporting People and the wider benefits to the other indicators. This support has helped GOs agree and set challenging but realistic targets with LAs accordingly.
Key priorities
· To provide support to the Government Offices to raise awareness of the programme and how it feeds into the National Indicators; · To share good practice more widely across Local Authorities; · To ensure that housing support is featured within the new CAA process.
Key delivery partners
· Government Offices; · Regional Resource Team; · Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnerships (RIEPs); · Audit Commission.
77. Local Authorities are ideally placed to provide a strategic lead across all public services in their area and to ensure that services benefit local people and must be responsive to the needs of the community and put those needs at the centre of any decision-making process.
78. Supporting People has traditionally been managed from Central Government, and not through the Government Office network. In recognition of the new local government landscape the department has established Regional Resource Teams (RRT).
Regional Resource Teams
79. Based within the Regions to work alongside other Regional Government bodies, stakeholders and local authorities, the RRTs provide support and advice and ensure that housing support continues to play an important part in helping reduce social exclusion. Although relatively new, these teams are proving to be a very useful resource within the regions and will also be a key element in the successful delivery of the Social Exclusion PSA 16.
80. The RRTs are working closely with the Government Offices and the Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnerships in:-
· assessing performance and setting of meaningful targets in relation to 141,142, 156, 143, 145, 147 and 149 (see explanation of National Indicators at Annex C) and assist them during Local Area Agreement refresh; · identifying other forms of assistance required such as peer/sector support; · feed in to the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) process by ensuring that the Audit Commission have the additional information they require to get a clearer local picture of an authority, prior to undertaking a CAA; · disseminate positive practice at a sub regional and regional level in relation to both PSA 16 and Supporting People housing related support issues ; · feed back to CLG on issues emerging from the Regions in relation to PSA 16 and Supporting People Housing related support issues; · support authorities during this transitional year as the ringfence is lifted on Supporting People and also going forward in to 2010 when the funding goes in to the Area Based Grant; · assist in the implementation of the CLG Supporting People transitional package.
Regional Champions
81. As the service review process came to an end and the delivery of the programme became less prescriptive. Together with an increase in the number of Local Authorities becoming "Excellent" authorities, which gave them additional freedoms and flexibilities in how they deliver the SP programme, it was important to disseminate and share good practice as widely as possible. The CLG funding and support for Regional Champions enabled this to happen.
82. In keeping to our commitment in the strategy CLG sponsored Local Authorities in 2007/08 to act as Regional Champions across a range of themes. The Regional Champions act as expert points of contact for Supporting People authorities in their region, and help to put them in touch with examples of, and resources for, improved practice. Each Regional Champion leads nationally on a specific topic or theme, and helps to join up authorities and practice across different regions.
83. Themes covered include:-
· Service Design and Value for Money; · Outcome Based Commissioning; · Needs Analysis; · Service User Involvement; · Governance Arrangements; · Joint Commissioning; · Performance Monitoring; · Streamlining Referral and Access Arrangements; · Provider Support and Capacity Building.
Chapter 4
Increasing efficiency and reducing bureaucracy
84. CLG are working with LAs and GOs to help them identify ways to deliver efficiency saving to manage the reduction in the SP programme budget. We are also committed to working with Local Authorities and providers to ensure that administration and bureaucracy is minimised so that resources can be redirected towards frontline delivery. Previously where we have required some elements of the programme to be mandatory such as use of Quality Assessment Framework ( QAF) to measure service quality this is no longer the case.
Key priorities
· To provide support to LAs to ensure efficiency savings are identified and realised without impacting on the delivery of the programme and service users.
Key delivery partners
· Care Services Efficiency Division (CSED); · Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA); · Housing Learning and Improvement Network (Housing LIN); · Association of Directors Adult Social Services (ADASS); · Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnerships (RIEPs); · Local Authorities.
85. As stated in Strong and Prosperous Communities, authorities are expected to provide local services as effectively and efficiently as possible. SP has already delivered a £345 million efficiency in the last 5 years, with local authorities and providers still able to provide good and improving services. Local authorities are now able to identify where savings can be made, and it is essential that they continue to do so.
Value Improvement Projects
86. The Supporting People Value Improvement Project (SPVIP) was established in 2007 following the success of the pilot projects. Significant levels of efficiencies were realised in the pilots, and there were positive effects for service users arising from the rationalisation of services, which brought them much closer to the profiles set out in local strategies. There was a strong feeling among teams of having been proactive and taken appropriate control of the delivery of SP in their areas.
87. The work of the SPVIP was integrated into the delivery of the National Improvement and Efficiency Strategy and delivery was passed to the Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnerships. CLG remains closely involved in the process of support of Local Authorities at a national, regional, and local level through involvement in the improvement and efficiency work led by Care Services Efficiency Division (CSED), Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA), the Housing Learning and Improvement Network (Housing LIN), and Association of Directors Adult Social Services (ADASS). The Regional Resource Teams work with authorities to support delivery of the housing support and PSA16 National Indicators and also gather examples of good practice and disseminate them across the regions.
88. As previously mentioned in order to further reduce the burdens on Local Authorities SP has discontinued work on the Directory of Services, which in turn has reduced the data that LAs were required to submit through the SP local system.
89. Whereas we recommend that local authorities use the QAF to help ensure that standards of housing support services are continually raised this is not a mandatory requirement. The information to support the SP Outcomes framework is also not a mandatory requirement .However, we are aware that some authorities stipulate, as part of their contractual agreement that the providers must participate in the CLG outcomes framework. PART B
Removal of the Supporting People programme ring-fence
90. In the strategy CLG said it would work with authorities to explore the impact and benefits of delivering Supporting People funding through the new Area Based Grant and committed to pilot the removal of the ringfence by offering a selected number of local authorities known as Pathfinders, the same freedoms that they would have if their funding was paid under the same power as the Area Based Grant.
Key priorities
· to test out the impact of delivering SP in an unringfenced environment; · to gather evidence from across the sector including providers, service users, commissioning Bodies and Local Authorities; · share the learning from the pathfinders more widely · to provide the SP community with a clear steer on the way forward; · to provide transitional support to the sector.
Key delivery partners
· pathfinder authorities; · umbrella organisations, other government departments and recognised national bodies e.g. Local Government Association; · service users, providers and commissioning bodies.
91. The Area Based Grant is a funding mechanism is it a non ringfenced general grant, and as such its use will not be directly monitored. It is up to local authorities to decide how best to use the totality of their non-ringfenced general grant (Revenue Support Grant and Area Based Grant) in support of local, regional and national priorities. Local authorities' outcomes will only be measured via the National Indicator Set and their LAA targets The National Indicator set includes two Supporting People indicators (NI141 and 142) and a number of others (see Annex C) to which the Supporting People programme contributes
92. Within the strategy and as part of the "delivering in the new Local Government Landscape" CLG committed to support local authorities and their delivery partners in moving towards delivering Supporting People funds through the new Area Based Grant from April 2009. In order to be fully integrated would require the removal of the ringfence from the Supporting People programme
93. The Supporting People ringfence protected the overall budget available in that LAs were required to spend the funding on housing related support or for "Excellent" authorities on wider welfare services. The decision on what services to provide for the different SP client groups was for LAs and Commissioning Bodies based on the local needs and priorities therefore the use of the ringfence did not provide protection for individual client groups.
94. At the time the decision was made to remove the ringfence 23 local authorities were classes as "non excellent" and were required to deliver on housing related support services, 112 were "excellent" authorities and the remaining 15 were the pathfinders
95. As the programme has evolved and LAs completed service reviews, produced their 5 year strategies and had a better understanding of need so the Grant Conditions had been revised to provide increased flexibility, e.g. LAs could change the Commissioning Body arrangements and were no longer required to contract for all services.
96. Hazel Blears wrote to Local Authority Chief Executives and the chairs of Local Strategic Partnerships in October 2007 and set out the list of grants that will be delivered via Area Based Grant. The letter stated that "CLG aim to include Supporting People programme grant in the un-ringfenced Area Based Grant from April 2009 "dependent on pilots in 2008/09 not raising serious concerns".
97. In 2008/09 - through amended grant conditions - we allowed a small number of authorities to have the same freedoms that they would have if SP were paid under the same power as the new Area Based Grant. This would, for a time-bound period, "remove the ringfence".
98. One of the issues raised has been about the length of time the pathfinders ran for and whether this was sufficient to identify any "serious concerns". The pathfinders commenced in April 2008 but in order to inform the future funding arrangement a decision on the ringfence was required in October 2008. In addition to the work carried out to gather views and evidence we also recognised the importance of providing ongoing support to the sector as SP is delivered in an unringfenced environment. The inclusion and on going development and delivery of the transition package to support the sector going forward has mitigated some of the concerns raised.
99. The inclusion of the Supporting People budget within the Area Based Grant supports the clear commitment of central government to provide authorities with greater flexibility over their funding. Localities would be allowed more flexibility to deliver local priorities, including their Local Area Agreements, and it would reduce their administrative burden.
100. Payment through the new Area Based Grant meant lifting the current ringfence from the SP grant, however a large number of SP services are delivered through contracts and therefore we do not anticipate a "big bang" approach to the services available at the 1st April. Unlike care and health provision, there are no statutory duties requiring the provision of housing related support. However, the programme is the largest revenue stream of Government investment in the third sector (over £1bn annually) and the majority of SP funded services target vulnerable or socially excluded client groups.
101. We have worked with the Pathfinder authorities and other stakeholders to gather evidence about the impact these changes made in the pilot areas. We have also explored the issue more widely, talking to providers and their representative bodies, service users, non-Pathfinder authorities, the LGA and ADASS, colleagues across Whitehall and in the devolved administrations and the Audit Commission, as well as analysing relevant data sources. Through these discussions, the main concerns and risks raised have related to: · a shift in funding away from preventative housing support services, which - due to the contractual nature of the programme - is more likely to be a "medium-term drift" rather than a "big-bang" impact; · a loss of focus and understanding at the local level of the importance government attaches to preventative work which enables vulnerable groups to live independently and supports them into education, training and employment. 102. One of the key messages from the pathfinder learning network was the importance of having a clear decision and route-map for the future delivery of funding. Whilst the group raised early concerns about how much change the project would be able to measure in the short amount of time available, they also stressed the importance of having a clear decision in 2008. They argued that this would provide the certainty needed for authorities and their provider partners to plan effectively for the future.
103. The pathfinders stressed the benefits gained from a better mainstream understanding of housing support, and the potential offered by the innovative projects that they had been able to consider, with their new flexibility. The types of innovation delivered so far have been positive, enabling the delivery of jointly commissioned services which provide better outcomes for service users. For example:
· Prison Transport Service - to improve rates of ex offenders on release from prison meeting accommodation appointments, a contract for "prison to provision" is being agreed with a local provider of offender accommodation.
· Handyperson service looking to extend to the private sector and to close gaps where the Supporting People programme does not cover services such as disabled children moving to adulthood.
104. Overall, the views from the group about the best way forward was clearly in favour of increased funding flexibility. This represented a changed position from the beginning of the project when many of the learning network members were in favour of keeping the ringfence.
Department Response - Transition package 105. These concerns, the vulnerability of certain client groups and the high profile of any change, mean that the decision and the transition to the new arrangements need to be managed sensitively. As part of this management process, we have been working with stakeholders to develop a transition package that will help manage these concerns and support the sector going forward. This will build on the mitigation already in place to manage the concerns above: 106. The transition package currently consists of:
· revisiting and updating the Capgemini model which looks at the financial benefits of the programme to help authorities better understand the costs avoided through preventative housing related support services and therefore the case for future investment.
· develop a local financial modelling tool based on the Capgemini work which will allow authorities and their partners to input relevant local data to better demonstrate impact and evidence the case for investment (see paragraph 108 below for a more detailed explanation).
· gathering and promoting lessons learnt and examples of innovation from the freedoms gained by the Pathfinder authorities.
· continued work with member groups in the sector to support providers in responding to the new commissioning and procurement environment, through the delivery of 18 regional roundtable events, bringing together providers and commissioners of services.
· a commitment from the Office of Third Sector to work with CLG on promoting better commissioning practice, with a special focus on small third sector groups.
· CLG / DH / LGA / ADASS conferences on 19 January (in London) and 27 January (York) to help authorities and their commissioning partners learn from the Pathfinders and consider how their own localities will respond to the changing agenda.
· continued support from the CLG Regional Resource Teams to support local performance improvement on the commissioning and delivery of services (taking into account the work being undertaken by Government Offices and the Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnerships).
· further events in Autumn 2009, to continue monitoring any change and support sector with ongoing transition issues
107. We are continuing to work with Other Government Departments and stakeholder partners to agree and enhance this proposed package in order that identified risks are mitigated.
The Capgemini model included in the transition package
108. CLG have commissioned Capgemini to update a model to calculate the financial benefits of housing related support services with the most recent nationally available data. This is a repeat of an exercise undertaken in 2006 when CLG commissioned research to understand the financial benefits provided through the investment made in housing related support services and, in particular, the extent to which investment in these services saves money and avoids costs elsewhere through preventing or deferring use of more costly alternatives.
109. The outputs of the 2006 modelling were instrumental in securing the three year SP Funding settlement for the CSR07. This time round Capgemini will add new client groups into the model where possible (the previous model largely concentrated on SP client groups which accounted for the majority of SP spend) and revise the model to develop a tool kit that can be used at local authority level. The latter point is particularly important as it will provide local evidence of the financial benefits of investment in housing support services. The revised National model and the local tool kit will be available in summer 2009.
Annex A
Supporting People Distribution Formula
Grant Distribution and Allocations
Rationale for the Supporting People Distribution Formula (SPDF)
1. In the run up to the launch of the Supporting People Programme, intensive detailed work was done to calculate the amount of grant supporting each SP scheme, supported by bespoke IT provided to each Authority. This took account of several grant streams (including from Housing Corporation and Probation services) which were paid to the organisations providing the support services, as well as the amount paid by individuals for the support through the rent (and in most cases funded through Transitional Housing Benefit (THB), though in certain "long term" schemes individual contributions from people able to afford these charges were also taken into account). The amount of THB paid to individuals was a matter for local Housing Benefit Officers acting in the context of the THB regulations which were in force at the time. The funding in each authority was then calculated on an annualised basis as a total of to each and every individual scheme which was in place on 7 April 2003, net of income from charges.
2. In 2004 CLG commissioned an independent review into whether the Supporting People programme was providing value for money. The review concluded that £1.8bn was too much to spend on the services then being provided. As recommended by this report we worked towards a reform of the Supporting People funding so that allocations are based on need rather than the legacy of services in place at the start of the programme. This resulted in the creation of, and consultation on, the SPDF.
3. In addition, under the terms of the SR2004 settlement, ODPM was required to move to a more equitable basis for the distribution of the SP grant between authorities. A needs-based distribution formula has been developed as a tool for future distribution.
4. Following the CSR2007 process and as part of the settlement it was acknowledged that whilst work had been carried out during the SR2004 spending review period to redress the imbalance, further work was needed. The allocation of SP programme grant for the next 3 years 2008/09 - 2010/11, based on limited implementation of the distribution formula was conditional on steps being taken to fill the gaps on incomplete and/or missing data sources. This needed to be completed by the end of the CSR period so that there is a better understanding of where resources are most needed.
Consultation process
5. Communities and Local Government published Supporting People Distribution Formula- Technical Consultation Paper[14]: on 6 December 2007 alongside the indicative grant allocations for the Supporting People programme for 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The model used to calculate these allocations was published on 14 December 2007.
6. The Department committed to publishing a summary of refreshed responses alongside a Written Ministerial Statement in February. This was published in February 2008 as "Supporting People Distribution Formula - Technical Consultation Refresh[15]: The consultation refresh document explained that the Department had considered responses and concluded that the Supporting People Distribution Formula is fit for purpose within certain parameters, and represents the most effective option for better targeting Supporting People funds to meet need.
7. This decision was also based on consideration of the responses to the Supporting People Distribution Formula - Technical Consultation, published in November 2005, policy developments and an exploration of alternative approaches to determining allocations. The 2007 document summarised responses to the November 2005 consultation and invited Administering Authorities and others to refresh their responses, if they believed matters had changed locally in such a way that they would have answered the consultation in a materially different way now. Responses to the 2007 Technical Consultation Paper were considered under these terms and the 2008 document was limited to these points.
The formula
8. The SPDF takes the total Supporting People funding "pot" for England as a given. It assesses relative need between authorities, mainly on the basis of numbers of vulnerable people at risk, with allowances for levels of deprivation and cost differences, and calculates target allocations for each authority based on the level of need for housing related support, by using various needs data. How quickly the SPDF is used to distribute funding so authorities reach their target allocations is based on two principles:-
· authorities furthest away from their target allocations should receive the largest annual increases and face the largest annual reductions respectively.
· there should be "no cliff edges". That is, the pace of change must not be too fast, particularly for those facing large reductions in allocation. Increases and reductions of significant size cannot be implemented rapidly - there are pragmatic limits to how quickly change can be delivered on the ground.
9. In deciding how to achieve this, the task was to strike a reasonable balance between ensuring funding is allocated according to need, and ensuring that the pace of change in doing so secures the best provision of housing support services to vulnerable people. As such, by the end of this spending review period, a small number of authorities will remain outside of the parameters set in the SPDF. However, we have committed to the redistribution of SP funding as part of the next spending review (subject to resources) which provides a further opportunity to ensure the outlying authorities are brought closer to their target allocations.
Future developments
10. CLG commissioned its Housing Analysis and Surveys Expert Panel in September 2008 to carry out a technical desk study on the formula. The objectives are to review the existing data sources and levels of deprivation applied in the formula, summarise any issues with these and make recommendations for addressing these issues, to inform any future work to develop the formula. A draft final report has been received and is being considered currently. This will be published on the Expert Panel website later in the year."
Annex B
Questions asked in the Supporting People Consultation paper 2005[16]
SUPPORTING PEOPLE IN ITS STRATEGIC CONTEXT
· What more can Government and authorities do to ensure that Supporting People sits within an integrated approach to the strategic planning and commissioning of local level services? · How could we ensure appropriate and useful outcome measures for housing related support at the national level? What more might authorities and providers do to set outcomes at a local level? · How might Government encourage the provision of housing related support and other preventative services within the broader local government performance framework? · How might this be approached in a two-tier situation? · What more might central and local government do to build upon, and transfer more widely, the steps already taken to create a user focus within Supporting People?
FOCUSING AND INTEGRATING SUPPORT
· Does the model described in this document provide a helpful approach to providing a new focus for housing related support? How could it be done better? · What more can Government, authorities and providers do to focus services more effectively on individuals to create better choice and control? What are the obstacles to delivering that? · Are there any obstacles specific to integrating care and support services? How might they be overcome? · What more can be done to focus on support to enable people to stay in their own homes? · What are the obstacles to delivering that, and how could they be overcome? · What more can be done to ensure that authorities make proper provision for socially excluded groups? How might this be incentivised, including through outcomes and through performance arrangements? · What more can be done to ensure that services for mobile groups are planned across local authority boundaries in terms both of housing related support and more broadly? What are the obstacles to collaborative working, and how might they be overcome? · What challenges and issues need to be tackled in addressing these issues in two-tier situations? How could this be done?
FUNDING
· What approach should we take to the future allocation of funding for housing related support? · To what extent should we carry out redistribution of funding between authorities, and over what period? · How can we most effectively strike a balance between providing flexibility and ensuring ongoing investment in housing related support, including for more mobile vulnerable groups? · What more can authorities do to fund schemes which are regional priorities? How might Government approach funding schemes which meet national priorities? · How might we approach the introduction of incentives within a future Supporting People framework?
ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAMME
· What framework should be in place for the future administration of Supporting People? · Is a mandatory framework necessary and / or useful? If a specified framework is required, what changes might be made? · What arrangements should be in place to ensure the effective engagement of district authorities within a two-tier structure? Should districts be given a more direct role in commissioning and managing housing related support for vulnerable groups where they hold broader statutory and policy responsibilities? · What approach should local authorities develop for future performance and contract management? · What more is required for authorities to implement common administrative processes?
eSUPPORTING PEOPLE
· How could Directory be used to help people access a wider variety of public services in a more integrated way? Which services might also be included - e.g. social services, health, education, transport, voluntary? · How can Directory be used to help local authorities work collaboratively to support mobility across boundaries? · How can Government most effectively support and facilitate outcome tracking and reporting? · Might this require some form of service user tracking system? · If so, for which vulnerable groups? · What more might we do to facilitate exchange of information between Supporting People and other services? · What additional e-based tools might be developed to assist Supporting People authorities and providers?
ANNEX C
List of National Indicators (Para 62 bullet point 1)
NI141 - Number of vulnerable people achieving independent living
NI142 - Number of vulnerable people who are supported to maintain independent living
NI143 - Offenders under probation supervision living in settled and suitable accommodation at the end of their order or licence
NI144 - Offenders under probation supervision in employment at the end of their order or licence
NI145 - Adults with learning disabilities in settled accommodation
NI146 - Adults with learning disabilities in employment
NI147 - Care leavers in suitable accommodation
NI148 - Care leavers in employment, education or training
NI149 - Adults in contact with secondary mental health services in settled accommodation
NI150 - Adults in contact with secondary mental health services in employment
Annex D Pathfinders
1. Following the first meeting of the governmental working group that oversaw the testing process (which included colleagues from CLG, local government and HMT), it was agreed that the number of authorities to be included would be as small as possible, whilst ensuring that each of the following factors could be considered:
· Urban / rural; · GO region; · High / low performers (taking into account how recently the Audit Commission inspected the local authority); · 2-tier / unitary; · Individual Budget / Value Improvement Pilot sites; · Large / small SP budget.
2. Following discussion with Government Office colleagues we identified the list of authorities that became the pathfinders (pilots). From April 2008 CLG worked with the 15 Pathfinder authorities and other stakeholders to gather evidence about the impact the removal of the ringfence has made in the pilot areas.
3. We have also explored the issue more widely, talking to providers and their representative bodies, service users, non-Pathfinder authorities, the LGA and ADASS, colleagues across Whitehall and in the devolved administrations and the Audit Commission, as well as analysing relevant data sources
4. CLG met regularly with a learning network made up of SP lead officers and central finance / LAA leads from the Pathfinder authorities, along with the locality lead officers from the Government Offices. Discussions included issues relating to governance, commissioning processes, delivering better outcomes through innovation and gathering the views of service users
5. One of the key messages from the group was the importance of having a clear decision and route-map for the future delivery of funding. Whilst the group raised early concerns about how much change the project would be able to measure in the short amount of time available, they have also stressed the importance of having a clear decision in 2008. They argued that this would provide the certainty needed for authorities and their provider partners to plan effectively for the future.
Innovative projects
6. The pathfinders stressed the benefits gained from a better mainstream understanding of housing support and the potential offered by the innovative projects that they had been able to consider, with their new flexibility. The types of innovation delivered so far have been positive, enabling the delivery of jointly commissioned services which provide better outcomes for service users. For example:
· Prison Transport Service - to improve rates of ex offenders on release from prison meeting accommodation appointments a contract for "prison to provision" is being agreed with a local provider of offender accommodation.
· Handyperson service looking to extend to the private sector and to close gaps where the Supporting People programme does not cover services such as disabled children moving to adulthood.
7. Overall, the views from the group about the best way forward was clearly in favour of increased funding flexibility. This represented a changed position from the beginning of the project when many of the Network members were in favour of keeping the ringfence.
Pathfinders survey of Administering Authorities and provider partners
8. CLG commissioned the University of York to undertake an independent survey of 400 providers in the Pathfinder areas to gather feedback on the process and its impact. Sampling for this survey was weighted to ensure adequate views were gathered from providers of services for the socially excluded and "less popular" client groups, including the PSA16 groups. A parallel survey also gathered views from those working locally on Supporting People, Supporting People Commissioning Body and the Local Strategic Partnership. The main findings from the report were that: 9. The changes that had resulted from the removal of ring fencing in the Pathfinder areas were restricted in scale. Contracts with many service providers often have substantial amounts of time left to run, limiting the scope for altering commissioning and, in any case, commissioners were largely content with their existing mix of housing support services and did not want to radically alter the service mix in their areas. 10. Some respondents had the view that not enough time had elapsed for the impacts of ring fence removal to be fully assessed. 11. The introduction of greater flexibility in commissioning of housing support services was widely supported and seen as generally positive. 12. Most of the concerns about the removal of the ring fence centred on the risk of funding loss, a predictable conclusion, but one which appeared to be causing widespread worry. This included a concern that funding would be slowly redirected over time and that services for some client groups would lose a disproportionate amount of funding. 13. The other concerns that were widely reported centred on the risk of a loss of the imperative, focus and direction for Supporting People. In particular there was a concern that the programme would be absorbed and then 'dissolved' within wider strategic planning and commissioning structures. 14. Although it was not a primary concern of this research, a clear link was identified between providers' optimism about the future of the programme and their satisfaction with information dissemination and consultation. Evidence from provider "focus groups"
15. To further supplement the overall findings of the survey of providers, CLG officials held a number of smaller focus group meetings with providers, to explore further their concerns and the impact that changes might have in the areas within which they operate.
16. Generally, these meetings raised the same concerns as those captured in the survey. In addition, the following issues were raised:
· with authorities focussed more on their local area and LAA, those services that met a regional need would be threatened;
· varying local priorities could mean that, for services operating in more than one area, a decision to shift funding in one area could have a wider impact on the services provided and could lead to organisations closing (with the resulting impact on the market);
· concerns that if funds are diverted away from some of the most vulnerable client groups, services may no longer be viable which could result in the loss of the service and for providers to dispose of capital assets i.e. buildings and related planning permission. If in the medium to long term there was need for these services to be reinstated this could be difficult to achieve in some locations, e.g. central London/city locations, particularly where the services are required for less popular services e.g. homeless hostels, refuges for sex workers;
· a concern about a shift away from specialist services, to more generic support that could impact on who is able to / comfortable with accessing more mainstream support, for example a person with HIV or Aids might not feel able to engage with a service where the support provider does not understand their condition or how best to manage it.
Gathering stakeholder views
17. The LGA and ADASS have reported to CLG that they are keen to see increased flexibility in line with the overall aim to increase local freedom to respond to local need.
18. Written submissions were received from four provider organisations. The risks and advantages highlighted by these groups were mainly about the diversion of Supporting People money to fund other services, and away from less popular client groups.
Concerns
· Stakeholders reported a perception that most local authorities believe that the ABG is a funding stream provided specifically to help achieve the indicators selected for the Local Area Agreement, and therefore as SP forms a substantial portion of the ABG (c 34% nationally), income will be used to fund services which help to meet these indicators;
· Authorities may divert SP money to fund services with a higher local profile or to address budget shortfalls in other areas;
· Government is risking the sustainability of many Third Sector organisations and services for vulnerable people that have been demonstrated to achieve savings across many areas of spending;
· Lifting the ringfence potentially undermines a programme that is key to delivering central Government priorities around PSA targets in particular those for socially excluded adults;
· Losing the grant may mean that local authorities disband their SP team. Without a specific SP team to dedicate time and effort to monitoring, it is likely that quality will be compromised;
· The end of SP would change the nature of the services commissioned as they would be no grant conditions. Local Authorities might fail to understand the benefits of supported housing and so will not commission it;
· Timescale was not adequate for pathfinder authorities to explore the full range of the options available to them and allow any major concerns to emerge, therefore the consequences of the lifting of the ring fence remain uncertain and the risks high.
Opportunities
· Flexibility to deliver more joined up services to meet local needs and demands. · Better understanding of supported housing's impact on issues and reduce costs across a range of services: drugs, crime prevention, community safety, community cohesion etc.
Mitigation suggested:
· Strong guidance urging against the use of the SP fund in ABG to fund other priorities;
· Having grant conditions in year 1 that could be removed in subsequent years once there has been experience of roll out for a year;
· Retaining specific funding pot for particular groups with a focus on increasing the supply of housing for socially excluded groups and delivering PSA16;
· Promote understanding of SP about what it can achieve for service users;
· CLG to revisit whether SP services should be placed on a statutory footing;
· Strengthening the importance of vulnerable people within the CAA;
· Clear and transparent governance, administration and accountability. Safeguards should be developed in which overarching national standards for SP activities are maintained, and bodies such as AC reports to government in the context of some suitably reinforced local area agreement targets;
· CLG should firmly and clearly communicate to local authorities that they will be closely performance measured against all indicators so that the strategic relevance of services is not entirely determined by inclusion in the 35 local indicators
Gathering views of service users
19. The risks and opportunities highlighted by the service users from the Pathfinder authorities are similar to those that were raised by other stakeholders during the Pathfinder evaluation process (although this was a very small sample). While there were concerns raised were about funding and potential cuts to the level of services, and about the varying "popularity" of some client groups, service user highlighted the opportunities available though increased flexibility and more personal services that are better suited to individual needs.
Change in non-Pathfinder areas that have included SP in their LAA
20. CLG undertook an analysis of authorities who are not Pathfinders, but have included one or both of the housing related support indicators in their Local Area Agreement, to help us unravel the impact of a focus in the LAA, from delivery in a non-ringfenced setting.
21. The majority of the authorities we contacted were revising their 5-year SP strategy and commissioning decisions to link in better with the housing related support indicators in their LAA. However, as with the Pathfinders, the pace of change has been slow and so it was not possible to identify whether the LAA or increased flexibility would be the prime driver of change. The authorities did not report that the possibility of moving to ABG had influenced the future direction of the programme, although reported that the increased flexibility would allow greater partnership, improve joint commissioning and make progress on the personalisation agenda.
Conclusion from the Pathfinder project 22. While there have been risks identified, CLG (and many stakeholders) do not consider that these seriously outweigh the opportunities to ensure the mainstreaming of housing support and the delivery of better outcomes for vulnerable citizens, through innovation and more personalised services. CLG therefore concluded that the pilot (Pathfinders) had not yet identified any concern that should be considered serious enough to divert the direction of travel away from increased funding flexibility.
23. In arriving at this conclusion, we have considered the different options for the future of the programme and the outcomes of the Pathfinder project alongside the views of key stakeholders on those options/outcomes. Whilst there are arguments in favour of - and disadvantages associated with - each of the options for the future of programme, we concluded that the right approach was to lift the ringfence and conditions from the Supporting People grant .
24. However the concerns raised about the vulnerability of the client group and the high profile of any change, mean that the decision and the transition to the new arrangements need to be managed sensitively. As part of this management process, we have been working with stakeholders to develop a transition package that will help manage these concerns and support the sector going forward. The transition package will develop to reflect concerns and issues raised as we move forward.
25. The current contents of this package has been steered by the lessons learnt and risks identified in the Pathfinder evaluation. It will be further informed by the findings of the Audit Commission national report on the successes and lessons learnt from the Supporting People programme, based on their SP inspections (due to report shortly) and the Regional Round Table events and National Conferences that have already been held.
Supporting Documentation electronic links
Supporting People: National Report, Audit Commission, 2005.
Creating Sustainable Communities: Supporting Independence Consultation on a Strategy for the Supporting People Programme - November 2005
Help us to Make Supporting People even better - easy read version of the consultation on a strategy for the Supporting People Programme
Supporting people Distribution Formula - Technical Consultation - November 2005
eSupporting People: Shorter Term Questions - December 2005
Supporting Independence - Next steps in our Supporting people Strategy July 2006 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/spsnextsteps.pdf
Creating Sustainable Communities: Supporting Independence - a summary of your responses- July 2006
How to make Supporting People work better - a report about what you told us - Easy read version July 2006
Learning and Experiences from the Individual Budget Pilot Sites - sharing practice from the Individual Budget pilot sites
Common Assessment Framework for Adults - a consultation on proposals to improve information sharing around multi-disciplinary assessment and care planning
Reaching Out, An Action Plan for Social Exclusion'
Delivering Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods - A National strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/deliveringlifetimehomes.pdf
Collaborate the Supporting People partnerships project http://www.hact.org.uk/uploads/SP%20CB%20flier%20FINAL.doc
Housing, care, support: a guide to integrating housing related support at a regional level. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/housingcaresupportguide.pdf
May 2009 [1] Supporting People: A new policy and funding framework for support services[1]. [2] Review of the Supporting People Programme - Independent Report [3] Local Government White Paper Strong and Prosperous Communities - The Local Government White Paper - October 2006 [4] Creating Sustainable Communities: Supporting Independence Consultation on a Strategy for the Supporting People Programme, November 2005 [5] The consultation included 3 additional documents - Help us to Make Supporting People even better - easy read version of the consultation on a strategy for the Supporting People Programme - January 2006 [5] Supporting people Distribution Formula - Technical Consultation November 2005 [5] eSupporting People: Shorter Term Questions - December 2005 [6] Supporting Independence - Next steps in our Supporting people Strategy July 2006 [6] Creating Sustainable Communities: Supporting Independence - a summary of your responses- July 2006 [6] How to make Supporting People work better - a report about what you told us - Easy read version July 2006
[7] Learning and Experiences from the Individual Budget Pilot Sites - sharing practice from the Individual Budget pilot sites - March 2009 [8] Commissioning housing related support for health and well-being [9] Reaching Out, An Action Plan for Social Exclusion' September 2006 ACE Website http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/social_exclusion_task_force/adults.aspx
[10] Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods: A National Strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society - February 2008 [11] Delivering Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods - A National strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society - February 2008 [12] Common Assessment Framework for Adults - a consultation on proposals to improve information sharing around multi-disciplinary assessment and care planning - January 2009 [13] Collaborate the Supporting People partnerships project http://www.hact.org.uk/downloads.asp?PageId=175 [14] Supporting People Distribution Formula- Technical Consultation Paper:: Summary of responses and invitation to refresh responses - December 2007 [15] Supporting People Distribution Formula - Technical Consultation Refresh: December 2007- Summary of Responses". [16] Creating Sustainable Communities: Supporting Independence Consultation on a Strategy for the Supporting People Programme, November 2005 |