Memorandum from South Yorkshire Housing Association (SPP 39)

 

1. Summary

 

We do not believe that Local Area Agreements can be properly tailored to reflect the required Supporting People outcomes.

 

· Removal of the ring fence constitutes a significant risk that resources will leak from the programme leaving local authorities and other service providers to provide more expensive alternatives, or essential support being withdrawn from vulnerable clients.

 

· We believe that the ring fence should either be reinstated or, at the very least, that the grant and the expenditure relating to it should be clearly defined within Area Based Grant.

 

· We are concerned about the ability of the third sector to engage effectively with LSP processes.

 

· We are concerned about mixed messages around the personalisation agenda.

 

· We consider there is a need to keep a link between capital investment and revenue grants.

 

· We have concerns about the ability of a cash limited "pot" to respond to the challenges of increased demand for services during a recession (for example, as a result of increased unemployment, associated depression and mental health problems and drug/alcohol use).

 

· We recommend the adoption of common standards across local authorities.

 

2. Keeping the people that need services at the heart of the programme

 

2.1 We have a commitment to person centred support planning in order that our service users can achieve the outcomes they desire. The introduction of the new Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) which is much more closely aligned with the CLG Outcomes framework should enhance this. Our performance reported to SP teams evidences an improvement in outcomes NI 141 (planned move on) and NI 142 (numbers of people supported to live independently).

 

2.2 There have been some "mixed messages" from Government, Health and Social Service departments regarding the Personalisation agenda and its applicability to Supporting People. In particular Health and Social Services have tended to equate Personalisation as meaning exclusively individual budgets. Whilst we consider that individual budgets may be applicable to some users such as those in the Individual Budgets Pilots, we can see no evidence base that these are applicable to short term services and many long term accommodation based services. Having spent a number of years developing an evidence base for the effectiveness of our services we do not consider we should be taking a "leap of faith" - which was how one Social Service Department described some individual budgets to us. Our view is that Personalisation is about providing better outcomes for our service users. We would welcome guidance from CLG on this.

 

2.3 As an organisation we are developing a "distance travelled" software model based on CLG outcomes which should further evidence our approach to Personalisation and achieving outcomes our service users' desire, and would hope that more providers develop similar models.

 

2.4 Our service users now play a much greater role in their services. For example they are involved in the recruitment of support staff. Our residents tell us that the way in which they want to be involved in decision making about their services is to have greater control over their day to day lives. This is more important to them than, for example, being consulted on wider strategic issues.

 

3. Enhancing partnership with the Third Sector

 

3.1 As a long established provider of Care and Supported Housing we can see history repeating itself in Supporting People. When Community Care was introduced in the 1990s we were faced with a plethora of monitoring arrangements, contractual obligations and not a little suspicion from "partners" in the statutory sector. A decade or more down the line this has since settled into a "mature" relationship with commissioners and would hope that this path can be followed in supported housing.

 

3.2 We consider that wholesale re-tendering for SP services that we are seeing in some Local Authorities where we work is not the most effective way of delivering partnership working. Much could be achieved from re-negotiation of contracts if services are already strategically relevant, providing good quality and provide good value for money. We would welcome longer term contracts for providers beyond the 3 years that is generally proposed. The prospect of constant re-tendering is demotivating for staff that may see themselves as only a year or two away from a TUPE transfer to an unknown organisation.

 

3.3 The structure for Supporting People engaging with the Third Sector, largely via Provider Forums, is well established and is seen by all as representative. However evolving structures for engagement with Local Area Agreement/Area Based Grant have been drawn up in parallel. Given the cross-cutting nature of the Supporting People programme and its impact on a number of themes within the LAA (as well as having its own NI's), it is very difficult for providers to engage with all these theme boards - we have services to run. We therefore consider that there needs to be a way for the existing SP structures to be accommodated within the emerging LAA/ABG structures, or at least to have just one "point of call" within the structure. It is also unclear in most LAs as to who will "champion" services for many of the social excluded people we work with.

 

3.4 The 198 National Indicators do not properly reflect Supporting People outcomes. Most local strategic partnerships have not prioritised indicators relating to Supporting People and, where they have, they do not reflect the wide variety of service provision which the SP budget currently supports.

 

3.5 Our Chief Executive sat on the Local Strategic Partnership in Sheffield for 7 years. He was a Board Member when Sheffield's priority Indicators were set. He reports that there was only minimal consideration of Supporting People issues during this process. Given that SP is the largest single element of Area Based Grant, this lack of understanding on the part of decision-makers is alarming. Safeguards need to be built into the process if SP funding is not to leak away by default.

 

4. Delivering in the new local government landscape

 

4.1 With the removal of the ring fence there is naturally anxiety amongst providers that services will be cut or lost. Ideally, we would like to see the ring fence re-established. Most people involved in local strategic partnerships have little real understanding of supporting people services. A temptation to "raid" SP funding to meet other local priorities is enormous. If the ring fence cannot be restored, at the very lease we recommend that the Supporting People element of Area Based Grant should be clearly identified, and related to SP expenditure. We support the National Housing Federation's argument in this regard.

 

4.2 As a Housing Association that has invested substantial capital sums in building based services operated by both SYHA and our managing agents, we consider there needs to be some guarantee of revenue being available prior to our committing ourselves to capital expenditure.

 

4.3 We do consider that the removal of the ring fence may allow the provision of some services that had previously been ineligible for SP funding, particularly with regard to service users engaging with education. It should be noted that some of this "joined up" approach did exist before the removal of the ring fence, for example we have a service for young people leaving care which is commissioned by a social service department and jointly funded with Supporting People. We also have a mental health service which receives Health funding for the "care" element of the service.

 

4.4 Given the economic climate we have concerns as to whether the current grant levels are sufficient to meet the increased demand for our services. Recessions increase levels of anxiety in the population, and the temptation to resort to drug or alcohol solutions increases. Mental health problems become more widespread as a result. We see parallels with the increase in demand we faced in the early 1990s in the last recession. In particular we are seeing an increased demand for all social housing, thus making it more difficult to secure move on accommodation for service users who have successfully completed their support programmes.

 

5. Increasing efficiency and reducing bureaucracy

5.1 Working in several Local Authorities, we would welcome consistency in monitoring requirements across LA's and passporting of elements of the QAF that are concerned with corporate / governance arrangements of the provider rather than service delivery.

 

5.2 We welcome the regional initiative led by the Regional Housing Support Group (lead officers) in developing common standards throughout the region.

 

May 2009