|
Memorandum from Southern Housing Group and Subsidiaries, James Butcher Housing Association and South Wight Housing Association (SPP 49)
The Communities and Local Government committee is undertaking an inquiry into the Government's Supporting People programme. As part of the inquiry, the Committee is inviting views of Providers on the four key themes which formed the basis of the 2007 Supporting People Strategy and the implications on the removal of the ring fenced grant:
Supported Housing staff from Southern Housing Group and Subsidiaries James Butcher Housing Association and South Wight Housing Association met on the 8 April to discuss the main points of the response as follows:
Key theme 1
Keeping people that need services at the heart of the programme:
The positives
· Maintaining independence in a supported/sheltered housing environment · Maintaining independence in the community · Support to sustain tenancy · Reassurance of on site staff presence - planning for older age and preventing deterioration · Social interaction - peer support · Proactive preventative service · Resident involvement in scheme and community activities · Opportunities for resident consultation/influence on service delivery · Providing opportunities for 'move on' in some cases to more independent living with alternative support packages - floating support · Resident completing a programme of support and achieving full independence - SWH has an exit of support policy · Resident input into development of outcome focussed support planning and risk assessing · Development of specialist support services · Independence and freedom from institutional services · Gradual increase in availability and use of dispersed community alarms which offer greater independence and the potential to stay in their own home for longer. ·
The negatives
· Local Authorities putting the future support needs of people at risk by decommissioning services based on in consistent decisions and against the express wishes of residents ex Hackney sheltered housing · Raised anxiety from residents/ concern from families over reduction of service provision due to cuts in SP funding · Lack of suitable housing options to allow for 'move on' in some areas · 'Bed blocking' due to lack of move on · Prolonged provider and resident concern over the future of sheltered housing in it's traditional format
Key theme 2
Enhancing Partnerships
The positives
· Better exchange of info/disclosure · Formation of positive partnerships and joint provider support · Understanding the needs of specific client groups · Engagement with local statutory and non statutory organisations - preventing social isolation/exclusion · Increased uptake/inclusion of BME residents. · Closer working with advocates, families and other dependent representation · Training, education and employment · Learning - communication partnership · SP accreditation and review process generally ensuring good Provider practice · Review of our own policies and procedures have reflected requirements of Quality Assessment Framework
The negatives
· Reduced attendance in recent years at Provider Forums; reasons given include reduction in resources due to budget cuts, lack of faith in being listened to, apathy due to cuts in funding and uncertainty about the future · Provider conflict - pressure to deliver services and competition between providers · In some cases, lack of early and effective local authority dialogue in the development of policies, strategies, direction and influence · Some sheltered housing services are still working with interim SP contracts
Key theme 3
Delivering in the new local government Landscape
The positives
· Giving key strategic responsibility to local authorities to ensure housing support needs in their area are met · More LA accountability · Bench marking - value for money · Choice based lettings may provide new opportunities for people to access housing
The negatives
· Lack of consistent approach, guidance, information within local authority areas · Salaries paid to staff dictated by SP funding - perceived as poor pay by some staff and being driven down further by competition - most affected employee group being women. · Failure to address the provision of lack of move on accommodation in some areas · Risk of funding being used for care rather than support moving towards crisis intervention only as opposed to preventative services
Key theme 4
Increasing efficiency and reducing bureaucracy
The positives
· Better evidence of what we do - resident involvement and empowerment are part of programme · Measured outcomes within the SP framework · SP paperwork encourages consistency of working and reporting · More robust risk assessments - better disclosure · Referral process for prospective residents works effectively · Enhancing partnership relationships for improved outcomes for individuals
The negatives
· Level of paperwork in relation to funding (disproportionate) · Uplifts (when and if awarded) do not reflect impact on true provider costs · Monitoring tools used don't always reflect work input · Providers having to subsidise the costs of providing housing related support · Variations in the contract requirements between Local Authorities · Lack of consistency/differing interpretations of QAF evidence between and even within SP teams · Voids exacerbated by eligibility criteria (age/client group related)
Implications on the removal of the ring fencing
The positives
· More flexible support models to include individual budgets · More opportunities to grow 'specialist' services · Increase opportunities to deliver support within a lifetime home model · Opportunity to review percentage split between support and housing management - opportunity to re-define some existing support duties as housing management tasks and include in service charge
The negatives
· Lack of secure funding framework for specific services - contracts likely to be subsidy based · Variation of implementation across different local authorities · Tendering process may put services at risk and reduce choice for service users · Significant cost implications of bidding/tendering for providers · Loss of specialist/smaller providers · Loss of expertise · Conflict/competition breakdown of partnerships · Loss of preventative aspect · Tenure issues - tenancies currently include support clauses in some cases · Loss of on site cover - impact on welfare of residents - family/advocate opposition/challenges to any changes · Threat to objective of being a 'first choice' landlord · Threat to landlord function - a loss of the support service may lead to withdrawal of landlord role and therefore management agreement with Owner. · Tendering process and restriction on number of providers per service in conflict with Personalisation agenda · Slippage of funding from SP to other LA departments · Potential loss of preferred/established Provider for vulnerable residents · TUPE issues to be considered - different providers take different views even when commissioned to provide the same service.
May 2009
|