Memorandum from the Executive Board of Providers in Kent (SPP 20)

 

 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond and offer our opinion on the SP programme, I am responding on behalf of the provider group in Kent.

We feel there is clear evidence that the programme has benefited many people throughout the county and continues to do so. There has always been a strong emphasis on service user involvement and providers have been encouraged to be innovative through a number of innovation and good practice grants, as well as their own organisations commitment to service users which has been as part of the wider housing sector for a number of years. The body of knowledge and experience built up over many years in the sector via members of the Executive Board of Providers (EBP), informs the strategy for the next 5 years in Kent. We believe the programme will continue to show not just benefits to the individual, but also to the communities of Kent via partnership working, encouraging choice and aspiration for many of the most socially excluded and disadvantaged groups in our society. The Supporting People programme has assisted with many national targets across the various client groups served by the programme. For example, dealing with local concerns about anti social behavior, supporting vulnerable people back in to work, empowering all age groups of vulnerable people to claim appropriate benefits to prevent deprivation, preventing falls for elderly people and thereby reducing hospital admissions etc. The dilution of such a programme would therefore have a far reaching effect not just on the customers of housing providers, but customers and professionals within Social Services, Health, Probation and many other voluntary and statutory agencies.

We believe that the removal of the ring fence within the Area Based Grant system may be a real risk to the programme and therefore vulnerable people, if the strategic and regulatory aspects of administrating the programme are diluted. The SP programme brought many challenges to the sector, but it is our opinion that these challenges have benefited service users and made the sector accountable and outcome focused. To reduce this element would, we feel, represent an unacceptable risk to vulnerable people who are not protected by statutory obligations.

 

We believe that the governance structures of the programme in Kent should be maintained this includes the Commissioning body, CSDG and Provider forums. Without these structures the programme may be subsumed into the existing housing and social care structures, thereby risking the loss of much needed specialist knowledge and experience and indeed the voice of the service user.

 

We feel that the administrating authority should maintain use of the QAF and the measurement of outcomes. We see little point in reducing the accountability of providers and the SP team. Demand for services is increasing and the protection of vulnerable people is of paramount importance we feel therefore, that clear, accountable and robust structures need to be in place. The Supporting People programme has established excellent standards for housing related support to vulnerable people, creating safe environments for service users to be enabled to live independently in the home of their choice, if the programme is diluted due to the ring fence being lifted many vulnerable people may suffer.

 

As mentioned above the programme has in our view, led to a number of innovations in service user involvement. The partnership with the statutory, Third and RSL sectors has combined a body of knowledge that in our opinion is at the forefront of service user involvement. However, providers in Kent are committed to improving this vital activity and we are also keen to embrace the personalisation agenda. Providers have a number of service user involvement strategies that in our view both compliment and offer real choice to service users and their families and carers. We are however fearful that a dilution of the SP programme will potentially destroy the motivation to continue to prioritise this work.

 

The removal of the eligibility criteria is perceived both as a risk and an opportunity. The removal in some of the pilot areas has, it would appear, to have allowed a much greater degree of freedom to deliver services in partnership with health and other agencies both statutory and non statutory. However, we are somewhat concerned that a removal per se, would put at risk much needed services that offer protection and a way out of poverty, addictions and homelessness for thousands of vulnerable people who fall short of social services thresholds and to whom local authorities have no statutory duty towards.

 

The issue of local connection has been problematic for a number of reasons. The SP grant conditions have enabled non priority homeless people to seek help and indeed escape from damaging and dangerous lifestyles. Should strict local connection policies be implemented for SP funded services especially direct access hostels there will be increased hardship and in the worst cases, danger to peoples lives.

 

We believe that the SP programme has facilitated a much needed debate in relation to supported housing both nationally and regionally. However, it is also our view that these structures need to be strengthened and more focused in some areas, particularly strategy and partnership working. In order to achieve this we believe that these structures must remain in place to address the needs of vulnerable service users and also to ensure that supported housing and housing related support services remain on both the national and regional agenda.

 

In order for the SP programme to continue to play a vital role in the overall social policy agenda the programme must be maintained as an integral part of the strategic and decision making bodies that currently exist. To reduce the influence and voice of the programme would in our opinion, be a betrayal of the faith put into SP by providers and service users from its very inception. We as providers acknowledge that difficult decisions need to be made, especially in a recessionary climate. However, the most vulnerable in our society need and in our view, are owed a moral duty of care by politicians and the agencies that provide services. We therefore hope and trust that services will be protected and sector stabilisation will remain a central theme of the programme into the future.

 

10. Our final point is to stress the vital importance of the preventive work of the SP programme, not only in preventing homelessness, but also in helping to achieve so many of the national indicators set out within the LAA. In our view the programme is ideally placed to work in tandem with a whole range of social policy areas that are specifically designed to meet the needs of disadvantaged, vulnerable and excluded communities.

 

Once again thank you for giving us this important opportunity to state our case for the continued safeguarding of vital resources and services.

 

 

May 2009