|
Memorandum from the Chartered
1. Introduction
1.1 CIH welcomes the opportunity to participate in the Communities and Local Government Committee's inquiry into the Government's Supporting People programme. Many of our members are impacted directly by Supporting People, in terms of working in administering authorities and service providers, or indirectly through its connection to strategic planning and sustainable communities. We offer a range of services to support professionals working in or with supported housing, for example our Leading Places of Change and Engage to Change programmes, and supported housing pathways within our educational qualifications. We are currently developing additional services which will help housing professionals to deal with the transition to the new funding mechanism.
1.2 In order to submit a clear and concise response to the CLG Committee's call for evidence we have gathered our members comments on the following three questions:
1. To what extent do you
think the Government has, so far, delivered on the commitments it made in
2. What do you think are the implications of the removal of the ring-fence, what needs to be done to ensure that the successes of the programme so far are not lost, or services cut, following the change?
3. What opportunities do you think this change in the funding mechanism will offer for innovation and improvement in the delivery of housing-related support services?
2. Summary of the main points
2.1 The Supporting People (SP) programme has brought clear benefits to the provision of support services. The removal of the Supporting People grant ring fence, and the inclusion of funding in the local Area-Based Grant (ABG), has caused great concern in the sector. However, housing professionals do see opportunities that could arise from the new ways of working, as long as the risks are mitigated appropriately. . · The Supporting People programme has seen greater attempts to make service users central to services · SP has enabled many people to live independent and fulfilling lives · Its specialist commissioning has resulted in commissioners being in a better position to fund services which matched the reality on the ground · As housing related support services are not statutory, there is a real risk of loss to social and other services · The impact of cutting SP services on other budgets (PCT, Probation etc) needs to be assessed · There is concern around the tendering process for new services as well as retaining existing ones as the procurement is very complex · The area of greatest risk is low level support services · In pilot areas, the removal of the ring-fence has freed providers up to provide more innovative services not hidebound by the SP grant conditions · By removing the ring fence there is the possibility that the local authority will be able to start commissioning services which extend past the existing conditions allowing authorities to support more and different groups of people due to the lift on restrictions of eligibility · It is the responsibility of the authority to understand housing related support and its preventative nature, if this does not happen funding may well be used for other priorities · There needs to be clear guidance and expectations regarding SP services on local authorities to ensure that the principles behind SP services are understood and valued locally · Clear contractual arrangements need to be in place for all Supporting People Services to safeguard the funding and ensure providers can financially plan for the future and have stability · The Audit Commission should include in the Comprehensive Area Agreements provisions to ensure SP needs are being met once the ring-fence is removed.
Specific comments and answers to inquiry questions
3. Q1. To what extent do you think the Government has, so far,
delivered on the commitments it made in
3.1 We recognise that in many areas there has been improved partnership working locally and improved access to services. The Supporting People programme has seen greater attempts to make service users central to services and service planning, reinvigorating choice and control in some areas. Value for money has also improved in some areas.
3.2 CIH members reported that the Supporting People programme has ensured that housing related support services for vulnerable people are paid for in a timely fashion, are quality checked and performance managed. This has been achieved within a strategic planning context which did not exist prior to the programme being introduced.
3.3 The introduction of the programme has been a great success in some areas and has enabled many people to live independent and fulfilling lives. Money spent by SP has produced savings in other budgets such as Health and Probation. SP has helped to create and maintain truly sustainable neighbourhoods and communities. Those enabled to live independently can then contribute to society positively.
3.4 One of the fundamental strengths of the SP programme is the extent to which it required providers (and commissioners) to embrace the concept of customer involvement. Its specialist commissioning 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 helps raise the profile of all the vulnerable groups involved. In effect, the strength of the case for each group is harnessed to create a more compelling 'combined' argument for supporting people.
3.5 The Supporting People programme has created many examples of best practice such as the QAF (Quality Assessment Framework) that has enabled providers to reach a minimum quality standard and in some cases exceeding this minimum and reaching excellent service quality. This focus on quality assurance ensures that providers are able to demonstrate excellence while also ensuring that any validation is done against a consistent and agreed set of standards. A regional approach has been adopted for the quality assessment process in the form of a standard workbook that is used across authorities, therefore reducing bureaucracy for providers and providing consistency by sharing quality assessment scores between Local Authorities.
3.6. Many feel that the involvement of the third sector in SP has been absolutely vital and has resulted in a thriving third sector, although some smaller providers have struggled to work within the programme in recent years.
4. Q2. What do you think are the implications of the removal of the ring-fence, what needs to be done to ensure that the successes of the programme so far are not lost, or services cut, following the change?
4.1 Whilst there is not consensus amongst housing professionals on the need to retain ring-fencing, there is doubt over how SP services could be maintained in the face of restricted budgets. So far there is no evidence that removing the ring fence has been detrimental. In some cases it could even be seen to be positive, as it has enabled new services to develop, which are not constrained by SP grant conditions. However, with the inevitable tightening of public purse strings, there is a real danger that money could be diverted away from low-level support into statutory budgets such as adult care, thus undoing all the good work so far.
4.2 In some cases, the removal of the ring-fence has freed providers up to provide more innovative services not hidebound by the SP grant conditions. However, there is concern that the case needs to be made of the benefit of low level support to demonstrate the impact of cutting SP services on other budgets (PCT, Probation etc). Otherwise, with very tight local authority financial settlements, it is quite possible that they will lose out to statutory budgets such as adult social care. The funding of services for vulnerable individuals such as ex-offenders to access education, training and employment has a material impact on reducing re-offending, and substance misuse and can in fact help people to become active, engaged employed citizens.
4.3 There is also concern around the tendering process for new services as well as retaining existing ones as the procurement is very complex. The implications of changes to support on schemes which are under the remit of another provider appear not to have been thought through thoroughly. These issues will become even more pronounced when the time comes to tender sheltered services and it is felt that Administering Authorities are leaving this as the last area to tender partly for this reason.
4.4
We can learn from the Scottish experience in changing funding mechanisms for
support services. In
4.5 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 lead to a more integrative approach to support such as substance abuse or children's services as it will allow authorities to support more and different groups of people due to the lift on restrictions of eligibility. However, it is crucial that any ABG surpluses are spent on similar services such as chaotic people in hostels, mental health or domestic abuse.
5. Q3. What opportunities do you think this change in the funding mechanism will offer for innovation and improvement in the delivery of housing-related support services?
5.1 The change in the funding mechanism will help to plug the grey areas in services, for example through more specialist workers. Provided this is done at a cost to SP and not a saving to other budgets it will work well.
5.2 It is the responsibility of the local authority to understand housing related support and its preventative nature, if this does not happen funding may well be used for other priorities. To prevent funding being lost to fill financial gaps, we believe the authority should demonstrate how it contributes to delivering National Indicators and how it is cost effective through case studies relating to cost benefits. The new CLG toolkit due later this year will help with this.
5.3 We feel that there is still a need for supported housing to be better integrated into the wider council and local area framework through the Comprehensive Area Agreements and Local Area Agreements, for example.
5.4 Area Based Grant surpluses can be used for other similar services such as chaotic people in hostels, domestic abuse and mental health. As long as it is not used to fill holes in the authority's budget or avoid missing LAA targets.
6. Recommendations
6.1 To ensure that we get the right amount and quality of services within the new funding system for supported housing, national government, its agencies, and stakeholders such as CIH should commit to a number of actions.
· Require Local Authorities to formally explain any decision not to match spending on supported housing against the most recent local needs assessment
· CLG to monitor and review the extent to which service provision matches the needs of those who are most vulnerable. This could be done through the local authority's relevant national indicators.
· Develop new commissioning guidance to ensure that service quality is a key determinant of a successful tender
· Clear contractual arrangements need to be in place for all Supporting People Services to safeguard the funding and ensure providers can financially plan for the future and have stability
· There needs to be stronger messages about the use of ABG through clear guidance. CIH has committed to support this.
· The Audit Commission should include in the Comprehensive Area Agreements provisions to ensure SP needs are being met once the ring-fence is removed.
7. Conclusion
7.1 There are potential benefits to be
derived from the removal of the ring fence, but action is needed at local and
national level to mitigate the risks. CIH has concerns that, as housing related
support services are not statutory, if the ring-fence is removed in the current
financial climate, there is a real risk of loss to social and other services. There needs to be clear guidance and
expectations regarding these services on local authorities to ensure that the
principles behind SP services are understood and valued locally. The Government
needs to get the message across that SP services are an important part of
sustainable communities (enabling the more vulnerable in society to remain part
of and contribute to the local community). Success of the ABG will depend on
local coordination, knowledge held by stakeholders and the state of the
The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) is the professional body for people involved in housing and communities. We are a registered charity and not-for-profit organisation. We have a diverse and growing membership of over 22,000 people - both in the public and private sectors - living and working in over 20 countries on five continents across the world. We exist to maximise the contribution that housing professionals make to the wellbeing of communities. CIH provides a wide range of services available to members, non-members, organisations, the housing sector and other sectors involved in the creation of communities. Many of our services are only available to CIH Members, including discounts. Our products and services include: · Training · Conference and events · Publications · Enquiries and advice service · Distance learning
May 2009
|