|
Memorandum from Look Ahead (SPP 16)
Look Ahead Housing and Care
Every year Look Ahead works in partnership with 27 local authorities and health trusts to deliver housing and support services to some 4,000 people across London and the South East.
Many of these individuals are amongst societies most vulnerable and socially excluded and a core element of our support is therefore delivered as part of the Supporting People (SP) programme. Indeed, last year amongst those we helped were:
§ young people, care leavers, teenage parents; § people with mental health needs; § people with learning disabilities; § homeless families, single homeless people and rough sleepers; § women and children fleeing domestic violence; § people with substance misuse issues; and § people with offending histories.
Our philosophy is to build on customers own strengths and to enable them to transform their lives, play an active part in the local community and to access appropriate training, education and employment opportunities and to equip customers to achieve their own aims and aspirations.
Executive Summary
1. Assessing the Impact of 'Supporting People'?
· One of the fundamental strengths of the SP programme has been the extent to which it required providers (and commissioners) to embrace the concept of customer involvement.
· As SP had specialist commissioning it resulted in commissioners being in a better position to fund services which matched the reality on the ground.
· By having a single (unifying) recognisable programme it helped raise the profile of all the vulnerable groups involved. In effect the strength of the case for each group was harnessed to create a more compelling 'combined' argument for supporting people.
· All providers of SP services regularly complete several data monitoring exercises. While we would never advocate for unnecessary information requirements, we recognise the many benefits which have been gained as a result.
· The involvement of the third sector has been absolutely vital. However, while relationships with commissioners are more straightforward, forging connections with the wider stakeholders can be more difficult.
· Anything less than a three year contract can be difficult so moving to a three year environment was more helpful. Yet a problem with the SP contracting environment was that at times it remained disproportionately weighted in favour of the local authority.
· Though the extent of demands in terms of information has probably increased since the introduction of SP, we would support the provision of useful information and have noted with a welcome the increasing move towards outcome related data.
· We feel that there is still a need for supported housing to be better integrated into the wider council and local area framework.
· Since SP started providers have had to deliver better and better services while funding has been increasingly squeezed. The lack of a (relative) funding increase will continue to impact on the services that those who are most vulnerable receive.
· The introduction of the SP programme with its resultant focus on quality assurance has ensured that providers are able to demonstrate excellence while also ensuring that any validation is done against a consistent and agreed set of standards.
· The case for supported housing (and thus for SP) is an extremely powerful one. This includes the Capgemini financial modelling which suggested that the "...net financial benefits from the Supporting People Programme is £2.77 billion per annum for the client groups considered (against an overall investment of £1.55 billion)".[1]
2. Assessing the Existing and Potential Future Impact of the Removal of the 'Supporting People' Ring-Fence?
Existing Impact?
· It is far too soon to make any objective comment as to the existing impact of the removal of the ring-fence given that it has only been one month (April 1st) since it happened.
· As a number of authorities may not yet have engaged in reconsidering the balance of services, it is not yet possible to talk definitively about changes in commissioning priorities.
Potential Future Impact?
· Without the ring-fence there is a real danger that some authorities will 'top-slice' the substantial SP funding to address fiscal shortfalls in other services, particularly those related to statutory or 'more strategically relevant' (in view of the borough) services.
· As the two indicators which most closely relate to supported housing (NI 141 and NI 142) have been chosen by comparatively few local authorities, there is a danger that if funding from the ABG is used to commission 'strategically relevant services' then SP services may lose out.
· Once SP funding is transferred into the ABG it could lead to a commissioning system which is less technocratic and needs related.
· Once SP commissioning and monitoring moves into the realm of a larger department with more responsibilities, the extent to which they can devote time to monitoring service quality will surely reduce.
· By removing the ring fence there is the possibility that the authority will be able to start commissioning services which extend past the existing conditions. This could have the effect of driving innovative new services and leading to a more integrative approach to support.
3. Measures to Address the Negative Impacts of Removing the Ring-Fence?
The Government's Transition Package
· While providers supported the announcement of the transition measures, from a London based provider perspective we do not feel that they have delivered as they should do.
Look Ahead's Suggested Measures
· Measure 1: Require Local Authorities to 'formally explain' any decision not to match spending on supported housing against the most recent local needs assessment.
· Measure 2: CLG to monitor and review the extent to which service provision matches the needs of those who are most vulnerable
· Measure 3: Make National Indicator 141 and 142 a mandatory LAA indicator
· Measure 4: Develop new commissioning guidance to ensure that service quality is a key determinant of a successful tender
· Measure 5: A package of tools to support the case for housing related support
1. Assessing the Impact of 'Supporting People'?
Theme 1: Keeping people that need services at the heart of the Programme
Customer Involvement?
1.1 As an organisation Look Ahead is firmly committed to (and has a well established reputation for) "...giving all our customers the opportunity to influence our decisions and services across the organisation"[2]. Yet, while much of our achievement is clearly as a result of the significant importance we personally place on engaging customers, it should also be recognised that one of the fundamental strengths of the SP programme has been the extent to which it has required providers (and commissioners) to embrace the concept of customer involvement.
1.2 From the very beginning the programme has rightly promoted the concept that the views of customers must be core to the design and delivery of effective services. However, it is only by having involvement embedded within the SP system, and in particular the process for assessment, that it has been able to properly ensure that providers have fully realised the need for customers to be at the heart of services. As the Quality Assessment Framework (QAF) notes "in order to achieve the higher performance levels (A and B), providers need to have integrated service user involvement into their approach to service management and delivery".[3]
1.3 The impact of this emphasis on customer involvement, while obviously different across providers and boroughs, has nonetheless had positive implications for all involved. Firstly, it has helped to make services much more tailored to the often substantially different needs and circumstances of those receiving support. When services are designed and where possible delivered (co-production) with the individual it offers an approach more suited and therefore more effective to their requirements. Secondly, the process of involvement helps to build equity and to give people a stake in the success of the operation. There are also benefits to involvement in terms of new skills and opportunities often not previously afforded to those who are most vulnerable. Finally the integration of involvement into the standards has helped to establish consistency while also allowing a framework for more innovative providers to excel and offer more forward-thinking opportunities.
Case Study 1 - A
Customer A was referred to Look Ahead (LA) from an acute mental health ward having been in and out of hospital for several years.
Once they had been at LA for a few months, Customer A wanted to get more involved in influencing services. They began attending the customer magazine editorial board, joined the Customer Services Committee and volunteered to help out in the staff recruitment process. They also got involved in a number of policy consultations.
While Customer A now feels more optimistic and has recently finished studying for an NVQ, LA has benefited by having projects and initiatives which are more customer focused, for example a set of 'Customer Expectations'.
Analysing Need?
1.4 With regards to identifying the support needs in a particular area, one of the beneficial elements of SP is the broadly technocratic and specialised nature of commissioning.
1.5 While we may not always have agreed with a council's assessment of needs and subsequent funding allocation, we appreciate that the nature of demand coupled with the myriad of possible support responses make efficacious commissioning a highly complex and challenging task.
1.6 It has therefore been extremely beneficial and important that SP has had specialist commissioning, which in many cases is client group specific. It meant that commissioners were able to focus both time and resources on the task of building up relationships and on understanding and assessing the needs of a particular area. This in turn resulted in them being in a much more informed position to be able to fund services which reflect the reality on the ground.
Winning the Argument?
1.7 One of the most useful functions of the 'SP programme' is that it draws together individuals with a diverse set of core support needs (i.e. mental health, learning disabilities, homelessness, young people etc) into one recognisable 'über-group' (known as Supporting People).
1.8 A key role for providers across any support area is to make the case as to why individuals with particular needs (i.e. mental health, learning disabilities etc) should receive (limited) resources and help. However, decision makers and funders (at both a local and especially national level) clearly have a finite amount of resources and significant pulls upon these.
1.9 If advocates are having to make the case separately for each core support need then it will inevitably be harder to win the argument. Furthermore, experience has shown that the level of influence each group could exert is not equitable and certain groups are likely to enjoy more 'public and political support' than others are. This presents concerns, especially if technocratic commissioning is compromised, that certain groups will lose out.
1.10 By having a single unifying programme it helps to raise the profile of all concerned. In effect the strength of the case for each support need is harnessed to create a more compelling 'combined' collective case for supporting people. This not only helped to support the most vulnerable but it also would have had some impact on minimising the difficulties that the least 'popular' groups might have experienced.
Case Study 2 - B
Customer B was referred to Look Ahead with a variety of support needs. They had just left custody for a series of offences and were diagnosed as having a borderline personality disorder and were suffering from depression.
By working with 'Customer B' (and in partnership with other agencies) we were able to support them to gain new accommodation, address there mental health issues and to obtain a computer from a charity. We have also helped them to control and reduce their debt levels and to gain some voluntary work while they apply for college.
An Improved Data Set?
1.11 All providers of SP services regularly complete several data monitoring exercises including an 'Outcomes Framework'. Indeed, while some of the indicators (and the methodology behind them) may have had some technical difficulties the extensive and wide ranging data set makes SP one of the most monitored areas of its type.
1.13 While as a provider we would never advocate for unnecessary or disproportionate information requirements we recognise the many benefits which have been gained as a result of the breadth of information available.
1.14 Firstly it has placed both commissioners and providers in a much stronger position with regards to evidence based policy making (EBPM). As the outcomes of particular actions are known and reported both parties are able to identify what works and to share that good practice, for example, we have enjoyed particular success in relation to 'move-on' from our hostels and the good work that supports that can act as a show-case.
1.15 Secondly and linked in with the above point is the fact that the information allows for a robust platform from which to assess and judge how providers are performing against a range of criteria. This helps support performance management and has contributed to a sector which puts customers at the centre.
Theme 2: Enhancing partnership with the Third Sector
Embracing the Third Sector?
1.16 The involvement of the third sector has been absolutely vital to the success of the programme. While commissioners may have the processes and frameworks to act as enablers it is the third sector that have the experience, skills and operational calibration to be able to deliver the challenging agenda of SP.
1.17 The situation between providers and commissioners can clearly differ depending upon the characteristics and nature of the relationship; however, we would consider that in our experience the relationship between the two is a pretty positive one. There are evidently a whole host of factors which result in this, not least a joint commitment to supporting those who are most vulnerable, however, it is also the case that the technocratic expertise of commissioners probably puts them in a better position to appreciate and connect with third sector providers than if they were further removed.
1.18 One criticism though related to embracement - which will become more important given the move to ABG - is the resources and complexity in building relations with the wider local authority body (i.e. not SP). Though links with commissioners occur automatically, forging connections with the wider council, local politicians and other stakeholder bodies can be more difficult, particularly when you have to do that across multiple areas. We also feel that local authorities could do more (as could central and regional bodies) to support providers to engage.
A Fair Contracting Environment?
1.19 The decision to move to a three year contracting environment was a helpful decision. Anything less then three years is challenging because it does not promote effective service planning, it causes great uncertainty and does not demonstrate significant confidence, which itself causes friction within a commission/provider relationship.
1.20 The problem with the SP contracting environment was that at times it was disproportionately weighted in favour of the local authority. There were often clauses which allow authorities to withdraw at short notice with little or no punitive consequences. This made the sustainability of funding appear precarious and did not actively promote an environment in which providers could easily settle and thus plan for long term service provision. Moreover, for smaller providers who may have only a few contracts the uncertainty would temper against introducing potentially innovative or forward thinking services because they would be unwilling to risk.
The Reporting Regime?
1.21 As the SP strategy observed, "it is important to have the right level of reporting and accountability". As noted above (1.13) while we would not advocate for a burdensome reporting regime, we recognise and support the many benefits that come from the level of information and evidence associated with the programme.
1.22 Though the extent of demands in terms of information has probably increased since the introduction of SP, we would support the provision of useful information and have also noted with a welcome the increasing move towards outcome related data.
Theme 3: Delivering in the new local government landscape
Involvement in Local Area Agreement Planning?
1.23 While this theme principally concerns the local authority it is just important to note how providers (and the programme) have fitted into local planning.
1.24 It is impossible to give a homogeneous response to this as like many subjects the experience differs from authority to authority. However, as with the concern expressed above (1.18), the difficulties in engaging wider than commissioners have made it more complex to ensure that the voice of supported housing providers is effectively heard. Indeed, while Look Ahead is represented (at different layers) on several LSP's, for the majority of our authorities, the only sector representation we get are in the form of a general needs housing provider (or in a few cases via a voluntary sector organisation). This is not sufficient because the particular needs of supported housing providers are not those experienced by general needs providers or by the voluntary sector.
1.25 We feel that there is still a need for supported housing to be better integrated into the wider council framework. This is necessary not least because supported housing impacts across a plethora of policy areas including worklessness, health, the environment, criminal justice and equality and diversity. This increased closeness requires both further work and effort on behalf of providers but also a greater recognition and appreciation that the local authority must include those from the supported housing sector. Central government could also do more to support providers in making the case while also putting further guidance (and pressure?) on authorities to respond.
Funding and Investment?
1.26 One of the few real concerns with the programme has been the increasingly tight financial conditions under which providers have had to operate. Since SP started Look Ahead like all providers has had to deliver improved services while funding has been increasingly squeezed. For instance the last SP spending review represented an 11% drop in funding while nearly one third of authorities faced a cut.
1.27 The lack of a (relative) funding increase will continue to impact on the services that those who are most vulnerable receive. Because money is so tight it has meant both that providers may not get the resources to be able to offer the level of quality or innovation that they want and that commissioners at times could be forced into not commissioning services which are needed but are too expensive or that the services they commission have to put a greater weight on economic factors than they would want.
Statutory Base?
1.28 The previous SP strategy made clear that "...we do not at this stage, consider it appropriate to introduce new legislation around housing support". This is not necessarily the place to re-consider the argument; however, it is important to note that the individuals supported by SP are often amongst the most marginalised and vulnerable. Yet despite this they are not always viewed as groups to whom public funds should be diverted.
1.29 The implications of this are that if the funding is not ring-fenced there is a very real danger that what resources there are which are intended for these individuals will instead (if there is no direction) be steered towards supporting those who are on a statutory footing, especially when the financial system is in such a perilous state.
Theme 4: Increasing efficiency and reducing bureaucracy
Quality Standards?
1.30 One of the real strengths of the SP has been its comprehensive and robust quality standards framework. Prior to the introduction of SP, quality assurance and monitoring was a hugely fragmented and 'patchy' affair. While some providers (like Look Ahead) worked hard to develop high quality services this was not universally the case.
1.31 Yet because there was no common framework against which quality could be validated, commissioners may have found it more difficult to differentiate accurately between those services which were both cost competitive but also deliver high quality services (i.e. genuine value for money) and those that just offered the right price. In essence, this situation was promoting a 'race to the bottom'.
1.32 Arguably the lack of external validation may have had the effect of disincentivising some providers from delivering service improvement which may have improved operation but had no discernable impact on the cost. Moreover, the lack of a consistent and explicit framework meant it was potentially harder for support providers to know in what areas they did and did not meet commissioner expectations. This had the affect that providers may not have been as well positioned to target (limited) funds to meet commissioning needs as they could be.
1.33 The introduction of the SP programme (and accompanying QAF monitoring system) with its resultant focus on quality assurance has thus ensured that providers are able to demonstrate excellence while also ensuring that any validation is done against a consistent and agreed set of standards. In addition but equally beneficial is that having an agreed but transparent framework of standards allows all key stakeholders to engage in a conversation as to what those standards should be and what constitutes quality.
Theme 5: The Case for Supported Housing
Supportive Research?
1.34 The case for supported housing (and thus for SP) is an extremely powerful one. The Capgemini financial modelling suggested that the "...net financial benefits from the Supporting People Programme is £2.77 billion per annum for the client groups considered (against an overall investment of £1.55 billion)".[4]
1.35 In addition much literature and research has shown that the individual, the family, the wider community and the exchequer all benefit. This includes in supporting people back into training and employment, improving the physical and mental health of individuals (for instance in lowering hospital admissions), addressing any issues related to offending or anti-social behaviour and general life skills or other help which will enable individuals to lead more independent lives.
1.36 While there is no need to replicate the findings from this research we would advocate that the committee take account of any preliminary results which have come out of the recent SP 'Evaluation' undertaken by the Audit Commission (AC).
Case Study 3 - C
Customer C came to be living in the Look Ahead scheme when they were just 16 and suffering with depression. C's father had perpetrated domestic violence against his wife and his daughters and C had witnessed the abuse for a while. When C's father began hitting C they knew it was time to leave.
When C moved in they identified through the support plan the need for support around maintaining a tenancy, budgeting, debt, identity and benefits as well as issues related to mental health.
C now lives in a new flat and commutes to Portsmouth three days a week to study Health and Social Care at University. C is also hoping to become a social worker and wants to use their life experience to help others in a similar situation.
2. Assessing the Existing and Potential Future Impact of the Removal of the 'Supporting People' Ring-Fence?
Existing Impact?
2.1 The problem with assessing the existing impact of the removal of the ring-fence is three-fold. Firstly it is far too soon to make any objective comment as it has only been one month (April 1st) since the ring-fence has been formally removed. Indeed, the Government's own evaluation of the 15 pilot authorities[5] (which ran for one year) observed that "some service providers and Commissioning Bodies [felt it] to be too short a time in which to evaluate the impacts of ending ring fencing. It was thought that changes to commissioning would only happen slowly, as existing contracts... [come]...up for renewal".
2.2 Secondly the contract length (the CLG pilot findings show that some 68% of contracts were longer than one year) will mean that a number of authorities may not yet have engaged in reconsidering the balance of services and thus the relative allocation of funding. However, when the next spending round is announced (as part of the CSR) it is likely that a poor allocation will lead to significant review of existing services. For instance a recent survey showed that "one in seven councils has reported a squeeze on adult social care budgets because of the recession".[6] In fact a poor settlement for supported housing would probably have a far more deleterious impact than would the removal of the ring-fence.
2.3 Finally, while the ring-fence has been removed the programme remains as a named entity. It is only when it is amalgamated into the ABG and is seen as a proportion of a larger pot (rather than as a specific grant) that the full implications may be realised. We would therefore recommend that the impact of the removal of the ring-fence also be assessed at a period of 12 to 18 months.
Potential Future Impact?
Potential Impact 1: 'Top-Slicing'
2.4 The SP programme was created to ensure that those who are most vulnerable receive help even though local authorities did not have a statutory requirement to do so. The ring-fencing of this funding was therefore vital to ensure that the substantial funding allocated was used only to support those who most needed it and was not 'top-sliced' or re-allocated for alternative purposes.
2.5 Without the ring-fence there is a real danger that some authorities will use the substantial SP funding to address fiscal shortfalls in other services, particularly those related to statutory or 'more strategically relevant' (in view of the borough) services. For example, nearly three-quarters of councils have adopted a 'substantial' or 'critical' threshold for FACS compared to 'just' 62% in 2006-7. This is obviously an even more pressing issue given the public spending deficits and the 'difficult' settlement which will be given to local authorities by the next CSR. For instance, the LGA estimated that "...growth in public spending will fall from 2.1 per cent to 0.7 per cent in real terms from 2011-12 to 2014".[7]
Potential Impact 2: 'National Indicators'
2.6 Many local authorities appear to be of the opinion that one of the important roles for the ABG is to resource activities which will help deliver against the selected LAA indicators. The problem for supported housing is that the two indicators which most closely relate to the work it does (NI 141 and NI 142) have been chosen by comparatively few local authorities. For example, only 28% of our authorities have chosen NI 141 while only 12% have selected NI 142.
2.7 If the funding from the ABG is used to commission services which aim to address the chosen national indicators, the absence of directly related SP indicators or even a lack of indicators (whether directly or indirectly) to which some services could realistically contribute would suggest that the continuing strategic relevance is in question.
2.8 The likelihood of this issue obviously depends upon the authority and the extent to which they consider that SP services are helping to address a particularly relevant issue. It also though depends upon how well providers are able to articulate the fact that supported housing contributes to a range of indicators and no just those related directly to housing or increased independence.
Potential Impact 3: 'Affecting Needs Related Commissioning'
2.9 As earlier noted (1.4-1.6), though we may not always have agreed with a council's assessment of needs, one of the beneficial elements of SP is the broadly technocratic and specialised nature of commissioning. Once SP funding is transferred into the ABG it could lead to a system which is less technocratic and needs related.
2.10 Once SP funding is subsumed into the ABG it would cease to exist as a programme. As a result, we would expect commissioning of supported housing to become the preserve of a larger council department who by virtue of having responsibility for a range of areas will not be able to give supported housing the focus or specific expertise it currently enjoys.
2.11 In addition as funding comes from a source closely linked to LAA's and LSP's, it is possible that different stakeholders will bring to bear different view points and interests and that this in turn will affect the level of objectivity in needs based commissioning. For example, some decision makers may identify with certain groups and as such would support more help for them irrespective of the actual needs. If this does happen it could lead to falls in services for certain challenging groups which could cause severe problems.
Potential Impact 4: 'Quality Monitoring'
2.12 The core aim of the SP team is to oversee the quality of the services provided (this is usually assessed via the QAF). However, once the SP team ceases and commissioning and monitoring moves into the realm of a larger department with more responsibilities, the extent to which they can devote time to monitoring quality will surely reduce. For instance a survey by Homelesslink 'Experiences of Commissioning'[8] found that just less than 70% of providers felt that they had seen an increased focus on price rather than quality.
2.13 The other key issue which will inevitably impact on quality monitoring relates to the possible changes to the nature of services commissioned. Once the grant has gone and the funding is amalgamated, authorities can commission different types of services which may not previously have been allowed under the 'tight' conditions of SP. If the sort of services which are providers span more diverse policy domains than at present, there is the potential that existing practices within the new domain will not readily fit with the quality culture in SP and will lead to some compromise in rigorousness.
Potential Impact 5: More Flexible Supported Conditions'
2.14 As noted above (2.13) there were a number of conditions which dictate and prescribe the way in which supported housing could work. However, one of the criticisms has been that the grant conditions precluded funding activities or services which, though not strictly housing related support, would certainly contribute to stable and independent tenancy.
2.15 Moreover research by the JRF demonstrated that "the Government has declined to issue authoritative guidance on how 'housing-related support' should be defined and this has led to wide variations in operational definitions at local level".[9]
2.16 By removing the ring fence and the grant as a whole there is the possibility that the authority will be able to start commissioning services which extend past the existing conditions. This could have the effect of driving innovative new services and leading to a more integrative approach to support. In particular it might allow for services for those individuals who need to combine supported housing and personal care. Furthermore, by allowing flexible conditions it eliminates the potential issues arising from local variation.
2.17 If commissioners do take this opportunity it will require organisations like ourselves to review whether there is a need to reconfigure the way in which we operate. However, the potential caution is that any radical new services need be commissioned in partnership with the sector so as to ensure that demands (on providers) are sustainable and that these new services take account of the needs of the area.
3. Measures to Address the Negative Impacts of Removing the Ring-Fence?
The Government's Transition Package
3.1 As part of the transition package before the fund is amalgamated into the ABG, the Government announced a set of measures to ensure that the benefits of SP were not lost. Yet, while providers supported the announcement many of the measures have not, from a London based provider perspective, delivered as they should do.
3.2 Firstly the CLG outlined a commitment to "deliver a new financial modelling tool which will provide evidence at a local level on the financial benefits of investment in housing support".[10] While this would be useful in helping to make a case for supported housing, there has since December been little indication of when this will be. Given that it was not to be commissioned until December and that there were some areas of the original Capgemini methodology that needed to be 'strengthened', it does not appear that the modeling will be available in the immediate future. This has implications because many contracts and spending decisions for the forthcoming future will already be underway at present. While the tool is clearly not the only 'peg' to hang the benefits of supported housing on it would have been a useful mechanism for helping to make the case.
3.3 The second transition measure was "guidance... on integrating housing related support across health, social care and housing at a regional level".[11] This is a useful and interesting document and clearly has much applicability for many of the regions. The problem is that London does not tend to operate as a single region; rather it can be said to work as a set of independently governed areas. This makes this document much less useful than if it were applied to the South East or elsewhere.
3.4 Another commitment was that there would be "ongoing support from the Communities and Local Government Regional Resource Teams to support local performance improvement". While this is a potentially useful resource, at the time of writing there was no such regional team for the London.
Look Ahead's Suggested Measures
Measure 1: Require Local Authorities to 'formally explain' any decision not to match spending on supported housing against the most recent local needs assessment.
3.5 Two of the key potential issues with the removal of the ring fence are the threat of top slicing, and concerns in relation to ensuring that commissioning matches needs. By requiring local authorities to 'formally explain' their spending decisions, it will better allow key stakeholders to challenge those occasions when they do not resource in line with the needs assessment. This should not only help make 'top slicing' and non objective commissioning less prevalent but it could also have the benefit of encouraging a more thorough, regular and comprehensive needs assessment.
Measure 2: CLG to monitor and review the extent to which service provision matches the needs of those who are most vulnerable
3.6 Linking in with the measure above, it is important that the CLG is aware of and takes steps to ensure that no particular groups of vulnerable people lose out as a result of any changes in governance, funding or commissioning priorities. By undertaking a formal study the Government will be able to ascertain whether this has been the case and can take appropriate action as is necessary.
Measure 3: Make National Indicator 141 and 142 a mandatory LAA indicator
3.7 There was a clear decision that SP was not to be put on a statutory footing. However, given the relatively poor take up of the most closely associated supported housing national indicators, there is a real concern that the funding once integrated in the ABG will be directed elsewhere.
3.8 If the CLG included NI 141 and 142 alongside the 17 indicators which every authority had to have (this could be done as part of second year re-fresh), it would help ensure that they were given sufficient attention and thus that they receive an appropriate allocation of funding and capacity.
3.9 It might also be useful to ensure that achievement against these national indicators is given the necessary reflection within the local performance framework (i.e. CAA).
Measure 4: Develop new commissioning guidance to ensure that service quality is a key determinant of a successful tender
3.10 One of the possible issues of the loss of SP is that service quality will be affected (2.12 and 2.13). By having commissioning guidance which encourages authorities to give substantive weight to service quality it will help ensure that providers place importance on service improvement. Moreover, it should ensure that meeting and maintain high standards are embedded within the everyday work of those providing housing support.
Measure 5: A package of tools to support the case for housing related support
3.11 The Government has committed to developing a more localised version of the monetary analysis done by Capgemini. We would however like to see further information and tools and suggestions with regards to making the case, and in particular with relation to influencing members, senior council officers and members of an LSP.
3.21 This could include more accessible research, guidance for better marketing and greater opportunities for showcasing good practice. We would like to see this information developed in a partnership between the CLG, providers and commissioners.
May 2009 [1] http://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/BF683D3D-32AB-4D66-822E-62D84CDEAAFA/14494/ResearchintothefinancialbenefitsoftheSPProgramme.pdf [2] http://www.lookahead.org.uk/default.aspx?CATID=6336 [3] http://www.bexley.gov.uk/service/housing/supportingpeople/pdfs/Using_The_QAF.pdf [4] http://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/BF683D3D-32AB-4D66-822E-62D84CDEAAFA/14494/ResearchintothefinancialbenefitsoftheSPProgramme.pdf [5] http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/supportingpeoplefunding.pdf [6] http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/04/24/111370/adass-reports-tighter-budget-controls-as-downturn-bites.html [7] http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=1836068 [8] http://www.homeless.org.uk/developyourservice/topics/Commissioning [9] http://www.jrf.org.uk/node/2646 [10] http://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4E3399E3-9262-43FE-A679-980B7DF90EA9/16043/081212TransitionPackage.doc [11] http://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4E3399E3-9262-43FE-A679-980B7DF90EA9/16043/081212TransitionPackage.doc |