|
Memorandum from Crisis (SPP 112)
Crisis is the national charity for single homeless people. We are dedicated to ending homelessness by delivering life-changing services and campaigning for change. Our innovative education, employment, housing and well-being services address individual needs and help people to transform their lives. We are determined campaigners, working to prevent people from becoming homeless and advocating solutions informed by research and our direct experience.
Executive Summary
· Crisis believes that Supporting People (SP) provides vital services for single homeless people and other socially excluded groups. Since its introduction it has brought real benefits and improvements in services which both support people to break out of homelessness and prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place
· We welcome the prospect of increased flexibility and innovation as a result of the ring-fence being removed, especially the possibility of other services being 'added on' to existing housing related SP services.
· However, we are very concerned that the potential benefits of increased flexibility and innovation will be lost if local authorities divert funds away from SP, leaving crucial services at risk of being cut
· We are
also concerned that the new funding arrangements will lead to an increase in
local authorities 'gatekeeping' services by requiring individuals to
demonstrate a 'local connection' in order to access those services. We believe
this is particularly likely to present problems in
· To ensure the crucial services that SP supports are not cut and successes are not lost, Crisis would like to see:
Ø A new duty on local authorities to prevent all people from becoming homeless and to deliver housing related support and care for the single homeless.
Ø CLG reviews of SP strategies if monitoring shows local authorities are not providing the right level of funding for the right types of services.
Ø A new overall framework for SP with joint commissioning of services at the local, regional and national level. Issues and Recommendations
Supporting People and the removal of the ringfence
1. SP is vital to the wellbeing of single homeless people. The introduction of SP highlighted the importance of work focused on single homeless people and other socially excluded groups who had previously fought for local, regional and national recognition and attention.
2. The basic premise of Supporting People was a very welcome innovation and remains fundamental - drawing housing-related support services together into a single programme to help homeless people, amongst others, to improve their ability to live independently. The introduction of SP has helped to improve the quality of life for some of society's most vulnerable people, through allowing them to move towards or maintain their independence. SP gives people the skills to lead more stable and independent lives, prevents them from reaching the crisis points that lead to people entering or returning to homelessness.
3. CLG research[1] indicates that leaving vulnerable people without the stable housing, emotional support and training in life skills that SP can provide, would lead to increased costs in the areas of the health service, homelessness, tenancy failure, crime and, in particular, residential care packages. In fact, the same CLG research states that the net financial benefits from SP are £2.77 billion a year against an overall investment of £1.55 billion. It is clear therefore that SP is very good value for money.
4. People become and stay homeless for a whole range of complex and overlapping reasons including relationship breakdown with family or partners, poor mental health, drug and alcohol dependencies and leaving care, prison or the army.
5. At Crisis, we have long known that solving homelessness is about much more than putting a roof over people's heads. It's also about providing them with the individualised help and support they need to get them back on their feet, reintegrated into society and out of homelessness for good.
6. Crisis' own practical experience and research has shown that this takes a broad range of services, from mental health support to meaningful activity and learning opportunities. We believe that this kind of approach, bringing together a range of services, addressing people's needs in a holistic way, is key to helping people to break the cycle of homelessness.
7. Whilst SP is an important base for homelessness services, the range of services required can be funded from other sources such as skills, health or welfare budgets. Crisis believes that removing the ringfence provides service commissioners and providers with a new set of opportunities to help and support many vulnerable and socially excluded people. Not least there is potential for pooling different funding streams and 'adding on' services to existing housing-related SP services, leading to a wider, more holistic offering.
8. This flexibility, with local authorities being innovative in their commissioning of services, could offer some real benefits. Adding on services that, for example, deal with mental health issues or that provide opportunities for learning and skills, could be vital in supporting individuals to achieve independence.
The right level of funding for the right type of services
9. At the same time, whilst there are potential benefits to removing the ringfence, Crisis does have real concerns that this could result in funds being diverted to other areas and away from services providing much needed help and support for single homeless and other socially excluded groups.
10. There are increasing demands on local authorities' services from a changing demographic, not least an increase in the need for elderly care. In the current economic downturn there is also likely to be an increase in the demand for local authorities' services as unemployment continues to rise. At the same time, local authorities are also likely to face increasing budgetary constraints and funding cuts due to the recession.
11. This change in demographics, increased pressure on public expenditure and increasing demand for services could result in local authorities being less likely to prioritise those groups, such as single homeless people, who they have no statutory duty to and where there is less of a political imperative to act.
12. We are therefore concerned that, under these new arrangements, funding could be diverted away from single homeless people and towards other groups within SP, or perhaps away from SP services altogether. If this does happen then those groups who might previously have been helped by the housing related services funded by SP could find themselves bottom of the pile, fighting for recognition and attention once again.
13. There is already insufficient provision for single homeless people. Recent research[2] suggests that 1 in 4 local authorities have no emergency accommodation for single homeless people and the majority do not have sufficient 'emergency provision' to meet the demand in their area.
14. Any uncertainty surrounding future funding will also be of major concern to providers. SP funding has been this Government's biggest investment in the third sector and, thanks to SP and other programmes such as Places for Change, advances have been made in the provision of services for single homeless people. A reduction in SP funding is a clear threat to the sector's future capacity to help and support vulnerable people.
15. Hostels and homelessness services provide an easy point of access to homeless people to engage them through meaningful activity and learning opportunities and then to help them progress back to work. We very much welcomed the capital investment in the physical infrastructure of hostels and homelessness services through the Hostels Capital Improvement Programme and the Places of Change programme and we believe that this level of investment should continue. However, here must be ongoing revenue funding available for such services and the high quality staff that are needed. A reduction in SP funding could mean the benefits of the better facilities will be lost as organisations struggle to maintain levels of service.
16. As mentioned above, a removal or reduction in the services funded by SP could also lead to increased costs across a range of Government agendas. Above all, any reduction in services will impact most on those vulnerable groups who were specifically targeted by the introduction of SP.
17. There should be a new duty on local authorities to take meaningful action to prevent all people from becoming homeless and a statutory right for homeless people to some sort of nationally accepted standard of housing related support. This would ensure that local authorities would not divert vital SP funding away from groups such as single homeless people.
18. Monitoring will also be key to ensuring funds are not diverted away from single homeless people. It is only a matter of weeks since the ring-fence was removed and so, at this juncture, it is simply too early to tell what its impact will be. It is crucial however, that we know what is happening to both the funding and the services, so we can ensure that neither the levels of funding for the most effective services nor the overall standards of services drop as a result of the ring-fence being removed.
19. CLG should therefore go beyond current outcomes monitoring to monitor both the levels of funding and the type of services being provided. If standards do drop and local needs are not being met, then there should be a mechanism in place for CLG to step in and to ensure local authorities review their SP strategy accordingly. This could involve 'floor targets' for services at the local level which ensure that whatever the general standard of performance from a service, there is an agreed floor of delivery that socially excluded groups can expect.
Joint commissioning not gatekeeping
20. Crisis is also concerned that the removal of
the ring-fence will lead to an increase in local authorities requiring anyone accessing
services to have a local connection. 'Gatekeeping' services in this way already
acts as a barrier to accessing services for highly mobile groups such as rough
sleepers, especially in
21. We would therefore like to see a new system of
joint commissioning of services in
22. We are concerned that the removal of the ringfence will also lead to providers moving away from specialist services within a wider catchment area, to providing more general services that meet the needs of the majority of the local population.
23. Some specialist services, such as women's refuges for example, may not be required in every local authority in an area. However those services, with their specialist skills, experience and facilities will be required by people across that area as a whole. We would like to see local authorities encouraged and supported to undertake joint commissioning so that where specialist services are required, they are sufficient to meet the needs of people at the local, regional and national level.
24. This joint commissioning approach could have
particular benefits in
25. We believe that there
are lessons to be learnt from the Welsh SP strategy. In
Conclusion
26. By removing the ring-fence, Government hopes to encourage local authorities to come up with new and innovative ways to support vulnerable people in a range of different situations[3]. Crisis believes that this approach could have real benefits for single homeless people and other socially excluded groups.
27. However, there are also some real concerns around the removal of the ringfence, not least the potential for a reduction in some of the much needed services and housing related support that have been so successful in helping vulnerable people lead independent lives. It is therefore crucial that the right amount of funding is provided and the right types of services are commissioned at all levels - local, regional and national. Furthermore, these services should be open to everyone who needs them, regardless of whether or not they can prove they have a local connection.
28. It is too early to say what the true impact of removing the ringfence will be but, whatever happens, SP funding must not be allowed to be diverted away from those groups, such as the single homeless, that were originally targeted by the introduction of SP. Therefore, CLG must monitor what happens both funding and outcomes and be prepared to step in if services drop below an agreed level.
May 2009
[1] CLG: Research into the financial benefits of the Supporting People programme (January 2008) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/supportingpeoplefinance [2] Homeless Link (2009) Emergency Accommodation Project http://www.homeless.org.uk/policyandinfo/issues/EA/project [3] CLG: Flexibility to deliver for vulnerable people http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1075788 |