Memorandum from West Midlands Voluntary & Community Sector Housing Network (SPP 23)

1.1 First of all I would like to thank you, on behalf of the West Midlands Voluntary and Community sector Housing Network, for the opportunity to present a written submission to the Inquiry.

1.2 As required, in this paragraph I have outlined, in bullet point format, the main points made in this submission

· The Supporting People Programme has led to improvements in service quality and for some small third sector organisations a proper and consistent level of funding for the first time.

· The new local government landscape offers the change for a more integrated approach to commissioning of services

· It is vital that action is taken to mitigate the risk that the needs of the most vulnerable households and socially excluded groups are no longer prioritised with the removal of supporting people funding ring fence. NI 141 and/or 142 should be mandatory indicators in LAAs

· Commissioning process should not intentionally or unintentionally lead to the exclusion of or disadvantage small providers

· The link between good quality, secure and safe accommodation along with quality support services should be recognised.

· Consideration needs to be given to providing individual service users with the support and information they require to make an informed choice.

The West Midlands Voluntary and Community Sector Housing Network

1.3 As way of background, the West Midlands Voluntary and Community Sector Housing Network is a regional network for voluntary and community sector organisations with an interest in housing and the development of sustainable communities. It currently has over 80 members. Not all members receive supporting people programme funding. Our members provide services to a wide range of vulnerable groups including:

· young people at risk or who are leaving care

· teenage parents

· women at risk of domestic violence

· homeless people with support needs including rough sleepers

· older people with support needs

· offenders and people at risk of offending

· people with alcohol or drug problems

· people with HIV or AIDs

· people with learning, physical or sensory disabilities

· people with mental health problems

· refugees

· gypsies and travellers

 

1.4 The aim of the Network is to influence regional policy and practice; and to ensure the sector is fully engaged in the decision-making process. This has included representing the sector at the Regional Supporting People Implementation Group; contributing to the development of the Regional Supporting People Strategy; commissioning the first Regional Homeless Strategy and chairing the Regional Homelessness Implementation Group. The Network also contributed to the National Supporting People Reference Group.

Implications of Removing Ring fenced Supporting People Funding on Meeting the Needs of the most Vulnerable Groups

1.5 We recognise that the move towards area-based grants allows for a more flexible use of resources to deal with issues in a particular area.  It should also minimize the need for organisations to seek multiple funding sources to provide a seamless and integrated service to people.  In that regard it is fair to say that current funding arrangements favour the needs of the institutions that administer funding rather than the needs of service users who, all too often, don't receive the full range of services they require because of gaps in funding or lack of co-ordination between service deliverers. 

 

1.6 The removal of the ring fence should allow appropriate services to be delivered (within cost limits) in a more holistic way with the needs of the individual placed at the centre of the decision-making process.  This is undoubtedly positive, and provides challenges to providers to think outside their own particular specialism, but also offers tremendous opportunities for working collaboratively for the benefit of our service users.  It is hoped it will reduce the need for providers to constantly justify each and every one of their activities against the different eligibility criteria used by each specific funding agency.  It is important to note that huge amounts of organizational energy are currently wasted trying to justify what we've done against eligibility criteria, rather than against a service user's expectations of the service they want to/ need to receive.  The current system encourages 'competition' between funding agencies not to pay for the support required.  The result is that some elements of a service user's support package don't happen because everyone argues that funding of that specific activity or programme is someone else's responsibility.  This does not help integrate services or address the service user's needs in a holistic way.  It is our hope that the removal of the ring fence can address this.

 

1.7 There are, however, key risks that need to be mitigated in order to ensure that the progress that has been made under the Supporting People Programme is not lost. In particular, there needs to be recognition that many services currently funded by Supporting People are not always 'fashionable' or politically popular.  We recognise that difficult funding choices will always have to be made, but removal of the ring-fence and devolving of decision-making to a more local level could result in the diversion of funds currently being used for the most socially excluded towards more 'politically' popular/ politically safer services resulting in the support needs of some of the most vulnerable groups being unmet.  It could also lead to funds being diverted from previously Supporting People funded schemes towards other programmes that have been historically-underfunded and which view the removal of the ring fence as an opportunity to 'catch up'.  Neither of these scenarios would improve the experience of service users or the integration of services. 

 

1.8 It is essential therefore that controls are put in place to ensure the commissioning process remain needs-driven and the process and priorities are not distorted, for example, by large organisations with lobbying power.  The Network, in its previous consultation response, on Local Area Agreement indicators, to the Government Office of the West Midlands commented that it should be mandatory for the all local Area Agreements in the West Midlands to include either NI 141 or 142 (or both) in their LAA. Network members feel it is important that these indicators are mandatory in order to ensure the needs of the most vulnerable households are addressed in Local Area Agreements and performance in meeting the needs of the most excluded groups is monitored.

Engagement with the Third Sector and the Procurement Process

1.9 As a Network representing predominantly small, rural and BME organisations it is important for our members to be given full access to the procurement processes and for there to be no artificial barriers to engagement that ultimately would have the effect of excluding a disproportionate number of small, rural and BME groups.  One such way in which this has already been unintentionally done is by the imposition of 'financial stability' clauses within procurement processes which require a level of reserves that most of the Network's membership will never be able to meet.  Equally, many providers will deliver specialist services as part of a wider package of support.  It is important that the delineation of service specifications does not require single providers to deliver a whole range of services directly.  Some provision does need to made within service specifications and funding agreements to make sure that agencies providing services are funded to liaise with other service providers.  Too often agencies are expected to absorb the costs of attending meetings and exchanging information with other agencies.  This won't do - there is a cost to these activities and it needs to be met.

Quality Accommodation and Support Services: An integrated Approach

1.10 Over the past 7 years, through the Supporting People Programme, many smaller agencies have received proper levels of consistent funding for the first time.  At the same time the quality of their services have been subject to rigorous and systematic review.  This has undoubtedly led to a significant increase in both the quality and quantity of the support offered to socially excluded people.  However, it is important to note that this support is only valuable if it is linked to secure and stable accommodation.  Whilst the integration of housing-related support (HRS) with other social and health services is helpful in ensuring that the full range of necessary services can be agreed in one assessment process, the link with accommodation remains key.  Many HRS providers also provide accommodation and their financial viability requires that they continue to do both.  Unfortunately, recent procurement processes seem to be emphasizing exactly the opposite. 

 

1.11 At a time when Supporting People is changing its name to emphasise its link with housing, on the ground members are being expected to tender for services irrespective of the accommodation in which it is provided.  Whilst removal of the ring fence is designed to improve the integration of services, in this important respect the effect is exactly the opposite.  This matters, because the experience of our members suggests that integrating services will not achieve the maximum benefit unless it takes place in a context in which the service user feels secure and supported.  For many people this may well be in a supported housing environment.  Living in an isolated flat with several different service providers popping around one after another is not an integrated service.  Being in an environment which is secure and managed, and in which you have a primary support provider who takes responsibility for making sure other services are delivered to you as commissioned, sets a framework within which growth and development can take place.

 

1.12 Making sure that link remains potentially provides a real opportunity for accommodation providers to deliver, or work with appropriate agencies to have delivered, a whole range of services under a single roof.  At the moment too often initiatives do not run in parallel and funding streams do not coincide.  Providers' aspirations to deliver meaningful support to service users which genuinely helps them attain independence can be stymied by the sudden loss of one source of funding or the re-prioritisation of funder's objectives in ways which are not compatible with the holistic service we are trying to deliver.  Making supported housing schemes 'one stop shops' both simplifies the processes involved for service users, but also helps integrate them into the local community if services can be delivered to a broader range of clients from these central points.

Individual Budgets and Individual Choice

1.13 There is some concern about the process by which commissioning decisions will be taken.  Whilst we welcome the approach to give service users more say in the services that they receive, somewhere in that whole process some thought does need to be given to the level of support people will need in order to make meaningful choices about the services that they receive.

 

May 2009