Adults

The Supporting People (SP) programme has radically overhauled the way housing related support is commissioned, delivered and funded. Housing related support services were previously funded by miscellaneous grants from a variety of bodies. This included:

• Transitional Housing benefit (which was paid to claimants for tenancy support services);
• Income support paid by the Department of Work and Pensions for tenancy-related support services provided to leaseholders;
• Probation Accommodation Grants (Home Office funding for local probation offices to commission tenancy-related support services for offenders);
• Supported Housing Management Grant paid to Housing Associations for support services;
• Housing Revenue Account local authority funding for council tenants to provide housing related support.

Support services

Since 1 April 2003, when the programme came into effect, an individual grant has been awarded to each local authority responsible for administering the SP programme in its area. The original grant award in 2003/4 was based on the amount of historical funding being provided from these various sources on 31 March 2003. Housing-related support services are defined by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (www.communities.gov.uk/) as:

• Developing or maintaining a person’s ability to live independently in accommodation, e.g. a sheltered housing scheme warden may check on welfare.
• Supported housing staff or visiting support workers may help individuals to develop skills with managing money and other skills required for independent living.
• Personal care is not included e.g. helping bathing, dressing, administering medication etc..

Changes in SP allocation grant

In 2003, the allocated SP grant nationally totalled £1.8billion.

In October 2003 the Government commissioned RSM Robson Rhodes LLP (www.rsmi.co.uk/rrweb/rrmain.nsf?opendatabase) to undertake an Independent Review of SP as a result of significant and late growth in costs between December 2002 and April 2003. This growth was largely due to two factors. Firstly there was a significant transfer of funding from health and social service authorities who saw an opportunity to charge support costs to SP and to reduce their own grant and support expenditure. Secondly by providers (including social landlords) who seized the opportunity to create more services.

Further to this, the SP grant from central government will be reduced year on year in accordance with the formula established by the DCLG.

The DCLG has advised that the unpublished formula shows that some authorities are substantially underfunded and in the long run should have their allocation increased; others will face a longer-term loss in SP funding. In terms of 2005/6, where the unpublished distribution formula indicates a long-term reduction, a cut of between 5 and 7.5 percent has been applied. Where the formula indicates a long-term increase in funding a 2005/6 cut of between 0 and 5 per cent has been applied. For both 2006/7 and 2007/8, no authority will have its allocation reduced by more than 5 per cent or increased by more than 10 per cent in any one year. All these figures exclude inflation.

The implication of this appears to be that if an authority has had more than a 5 per cent cut for 2005/6 it can expect similar cuts for the next two years. On the other hand, if an authority has had a cut in 2005/6 of under 5 per cent it might reasonably expect some sort of increase in its allocation in subsequent years. Medway received £6.2million SP grant in 2004/5 and was awarded an allocation of £5.9million for 2005/06, a cut of 5.5 percent. This figure is slightly lower than the regional average and lower still than the national average, but there is no reason to conclude that levels of need are lower in Medway than elsewhere in the region.

The table below demonstrates the comparative allocation of the SP grant per head of the population in Medway, the south-east and nationally.

Medway has a rapidly expanding population and with the proposed development in the Thames Gateway region we anticipate an increase in the general population from 250,000 to 300,000 over the next 10 to 20 years. The student population will also increase with the new University and these factors will place further pressures on our limited housing resources and housing related support.

Review process

In the context of the growing needs in Medway and current and anticipated future funding from central government, it is essential that we manage this resource appropriately and to the greatest effect.  

This will largely be achieved through a robust service review programme and effective contract monitoring. The review process examines the following:

• the need and strategic relevance of services;
• ensuring that services meet a basic standard of quality service delivery (as defined in the DCLG’s quality assessment framework);
• ensuring continuous improvement in the quality of service delivery by the means of quality policies and procedures and action plans;
• ensuring best value and cost effectiveness;
• responding to the needs of service users/key stakeholders.

Reviews focus on ensuring that the overarching aim of the programme, which is to deliver effective housing-related support to help people maintain and increase their independence, is being achieved. The quality standards on which providers are assessed are contained within the Quality Assessment Framework devised by the DCLG as a consistent model for quality assessment in SP services. This assessment framework includes ensuring that effective and appropriate support is being delivered in order to enable maintenance and progression of independence.

In relation to best value, Medway has developed a comprehensive formula to assess value for money. The formula is currently being used in Medway to assess value for money compared to the national and regional data which is available (though this is very limited) and data available in the authority.

All current providers have an interim contract based on the information they gave regarding service they provided and information provided regarding the amount they were being funded. These contracts terminate 12 months after the SP Review of that service. Following review, services will only be commissioned which meet the above requirements. The planned savings, which will be achieved as part of the review process, will be managed to ensure the programme continues to remain within the DCLG allocation and to commission new services identified as a priority for Medway.

Developing new strategies

The SP programme is still in its infancy in relation to similar funding and regulatory regimes. Many of the elements relating to the programme are still in development and will continue to be so for some time. This includes; the funding of the programme, both nationally and locally; identification of need for certain client groups; joint and cross authority working; and joint commissioning. The key themes in the strategy are based on the data and evidence we have to date and how we predict (based on knowledge of the sector and the authority) the programme can realistically be delivered in Medway. These areas will continue to be developed and be given greater clarity throughout the course of the strategy. This information will then be used to inform the yearly annual plan for the programme.

One of the problems encountered in developing our strategy has been quantifying local need, both in terms of the number of people requiring support, the level of need which must be supported and our ability to anticipate trends across the full range of client groups. In the absence of robust, evidence-based needs information, voluntary sector provision has developed in an ad-hoc manner in Medway. Service costs in the developing market are uncertain and establishing an agreed cross authority and regional approach is a priority. Medway is leading on the development of the regional value for money approach and this will be an objective within the annual plan for 2005/06. Appendix 1 of this document contains a detailed analysis of current supply. Measures are now in place and will be developed throughout the five years of our strategy to ensure that we are able to effectively quantify need and target the allocation of provision.

A major thrust of our long term strategy will be to shift funding from high level support, where support is greater than 16 hours a week, and focus SP resources on low to medium support to encourage people to live more independently. This shift will be funded through targeting resources to legitimate SP services, an effective scheme review process, efficiency savings, and through a decrease in residential care provision. This shift will follow a planned route for service users, which gives them as much independence as they want and can cope with and as much support as they need. Such support will be identified through a process of joint assessment and funded from the most appropriate source. This will include SP funding but also other funding sources such as social services and health. The provision of community-based support to promote independence will be a priority and our strategy highlights the need for an extension of flexible support services that can be offered to different client groups across housing tenure at relatively low cost to promote independence.

There will be a drive to increase the range and amount of floating/outreach support services to enable individuals to move on to greater independence, facilitate effective tenancy sustainment and prevent homelessness. Any medium level provision, which becomes available as a result of move on, can then be accessed by those with greater support needs. Medway will also take a lead role in linking support needs to available support provision. This will be achieved through a robust and comprehensive assessment and allocation process, which will be managed by the council. This will enable those with the priority support needs to be met as soon as support provision becomes available, irrespective of tenure or landlord.

The needs analysis in appendix 2 highlights some important gaps in the service. It is clear that young people with challenging behaviour are difficult to place and that there is very little suitable and sustainable accommodation for this client group. We are also clear that there are overlaps between Youth Offending Team (YOT) clients, care leavers, teenage parents and young people suffering from mental health problems with large numbers of young people falling into two or more of these categories. Secondly drugs and alcohol are a growing problem in Medway and are often associated with crime levels, violence (including domestic violence), and homelessness. Our strategy will be to review our current approach to services linked to direct access accommodation and develop more targeted approaches.

Medway hosts one Young Offenders Institution and one women’s prison. Medway also accommodates a number of offenders from the six male and one women’s prison in the Kent County Council area. The Kent probation team have a remit for both the Kent and Medway area and view these two areas as a whole. The Kent and Medway area also provides resources not only for the South East, but also for the country as a whole. Approximately 60 per cent of male prisoners in Kent and Medway remain in the County with 40 per cent going to the London area. Unfortunately none of this additional pressure on services is reflected in the size of Medway’s SP allocation. Provision of support to offenders is three times the regional and national average and provision of support to mentally disordered offenders is 10 times the regional average. It is of note that the Kent Supporting People strategy refers to a lack of provision in the area for these client groups. It is also of note that as with a number of other historical grants the Probation Accommodation Grant Scheme was top sliced into the SP grant, leaving no separate or additional supported housing funding resources available to the Probation service to fund such services. Where appropriate it is our intention to work closely with partnering authorities and stakeholders on joint initiatives to meet cross border demands more effectively.

Our strategy highlights the need for cross boundary working to deliver services to offenders, victims of domestic violence and single people with support needs but also argues the case for increased funding in recognition of demands from the local prison population. We will proactively work with others including the South East Region Implementation Group (SERIG) and the regional Cross Authority Group (CAG), consisting of other SP teams in the region and key partners, stakeholders and partners within Medway and current and potential service users and service user groups to ensure that specialist services are effectively developed and managed to address cross boundary issues.

The Commissioning Body has the lead role in the delivery, monitoring and review of the programme in Medway and will be asked to endorse an Annual Plan each year. This will reflect the planned objectives to deliver the strategy and the priorities for that year. The Commissioning Body will review progress against the five-year SP Strategy and Annual Plan every six months. These reviews will include risk assessment and contingency planning and will take into account future cuts and the impact on the programme. The key strategic objectives and outcomes for the delivery of the programme, the annual plan for 2005/6 and current risk assessment plan of the programme are contained within appendix 3. The Core Strategy Development Group however also has a key role to play in terms of operational decision-making and advises and reports to the Commissioning Body on all operational matters pertaining to the programme.

Over 50 service users and 30 agencies were consulted in the development of the draft strategy (phase 1) and a further 100 users/agencies were consulted through a range of methods over a six month period during the second stage of strategy development (phase 2). Our methodology and consultation findings are set out in appendix 4 of this document.

^ (back to top)