Comprehensive Spending Review 2008/09 - 2010/11
Fundamental changes ahead for housing support
There are major implications for the funding and shape of housing support under the Government's recently announced Comprehensive Spending Review.
Funding of local government
Overall funding (capital and revenue) for local authorities is set to increase from £10,651.1m in 2007-08 to £12,026.2m by 2010-11.The year on year percentage increases in funding to local authorities looks like this:
- 4.9% in 2008-09
- 4.3% in 2009-10
- 3.7% in 2010 -11
The revenue element of that funding (from which housing support services will in future be funded) increases as follows:
- £9,790.7m in 2007-08
- £10,199.5m in 2008-09
- £10,641.8m in 2009-10
- £11,032.6m in 2010-11,
Giving year on year increases of :
- 4.2% in 2008-09
- 4.1% in 2009-10
- 3.4% in 2010-11
On the face of it this could be good news for housing support providers who have faced standstill funding for up to 4 years in some cases and are keen to see an inflationary uplift in future funding.
Taking away the ringfence
The most significant change for many people, however, is that Supporting People funding will no longer be ringfenced. This means the Supporting People budget has been absorbed into the main local government settlement and distributed between councils on a pro rata basis.
Under the new arrangements agreed between the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) no indicative figure for housing support funding, or indeed any other absorbed funding stream, is being provided. Under this new system it will be harder to know what local authorities spend on housing support services but it should reduce bureaucracy and allow greater flexibility in how services and client support packages are funded.
What makes this all the more significant for some areas of service provision is that Supporting People is not the only funding stream to be taken out of ringfencing. Other funding streams that will no longer be ringfenced include: Violence Against Women Fund, Mental Health, Homelessness Task Force and Glasgow Hostels Decommissioning.The Comprehensive Spending Review was presented to Parliament on 14 November 2007. The budget is a draft which Parliament will continue to debate until early February 2008.
Quick links to information on the Comprehensive Spending Review
Comprehensive Spending Review – an update 14.12.07
The Scottish Government has announced funding for each local authority and the details are available here.
Funding for housing support is not mentioned specifically because Supporting People funding is no longer ringfenced. The Supporting People budget has been absorbed into the main local government settlement and distributed between councils on a pro rata basis. Under the new arrangements agreed between the Scottish Government and COSLA no indicative figure for housing support funding, or indeed any other absorbed funding stream, is being provided.
Overall funding (capital and revenue) for local authorities increases from £10,651.1m in 2007-08 to 12,026.2m by 2010-11, with year on year increases of 4.9% in 2008-09, 4.1% in 2009-10, and 3.4% in 2010. The revenue element of that funding (from which housing support services will in future be funded) increases from £9,790.7m in 2007-08 to £10,199.5m in 2008-09, £10,641.8m in 2009-10 and £11,032.6m in 2010-11, giving year on year increases of 4.2% / 4.1% / 3.4%.
The budget is still a draft and Parliament will continue to debate it until early February 2008.
Local authorities were advised at the last SP Lead Officers meeting that they may carry forward any underspend from the SP grant into 2008/09, although it will be up to them to arrange locally forany such underspend to beretained forhousing supportservicesnext year.
An initial meeting with CoSLA (organised by SFHA and involving CCPS and the Unit) has taken place to discuss the implications of the draft budget for housing support services – particularly with regard to the planned ringfence removal. CoSLA acknowledged the concerns that service providers have raised particularly around preventative housing support services working with people who are homeless or women fleeing domestic violence. It stated at the meeting that its concern is to promote stability across services and that it regards housing support as playing an important role in helping it pursue its current agenda to focus local government on:
- prevention
- early intervention (note: this is not about early years work)
- community empowerment
CoSLA did acknowledge, however, that it is ultimately down to each local authority to decide how to deal with existing housing support services.
The meeting provided an opportunity to consider the development of the Single Outcome Agreements. Work is underway to draw out indicators from the Community Planning Partnerships indicators to create a menu for local authorities to choose from when developing their SOA. This menu of indicators is likely to be consulted on in early January.
One issue that CoSLA was keen to clarify was that the SOAs are to be aspirational – this means they will not be designed to reflect existing services which an authority wishes to maintain. CoSLA acknowledged that it would be useful if it were to produce further clarification about the SOAs and future reporting requirements of local authorities.
The meeting with CoSLA was very much a first step to enter into a dialogue and something we can build on over the next weeks and months.
Definition of housing support grant.
The Scottish Government’s budget refers to the housing support grant (which is still a ring fenced budget).The housing support grant is a grant paid to those councils who would otherwise be unable to balance their housing revenue accounts. Previously a number of councils used to qualify but now only Shetland, because of its very high debt levels,is in receipt of grant.
The Comprehensive Spending Review - housing support
The Scottish Government has written to local authorities and other stakeholders about the future of funding for housing support services given the removal of the ringfence around Supporting People funding from April 2008.
In the letter the Government confirms that there will still be funding for housing support services even though councils will not be required to spend it only on housing support. The level of funding for each local authority is not yet known but provisional figures will be announced in mid December. In terms of housing support the Government's letter states that it is unlikely that re-distribution of housing support funding between local authorities will take place.
Local authorities will be required to enter into and report on Single Outcome Agreements (SOAs). These will incorporate the set of national indicators recently announced as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. The government intends to bring local authorities and provider representatives together to discuss the current housing support outcomes tool being piloted and the extent to which this can contribute to outcome monitoring and reporting under the new SOAs. The full letter can be read here.
The Comprehensive Spending Review - announcement
The Comprehensive Spending Review was presented to Parliament on 14 November 2007. The planned allocation to local government will be £11,137.3M in 2008/09 compared to £10,651.1M in 2007/08. At the moment it is not known what individual local authorities will be offered.
One of the key issues for housing support services is the planned removal of ring fencing of the Supporting People grant in 2008/09. This means that local authorities would no longer be required to show they have spent a specific amount of money on housing support services. Thiscould have major implications for the way local authorities go about commissioning housing support services.
The ScottishBudget Spending Review 2007 can be accessed here.
The Future of Supporting People is in the balance
An announcement is expected to be made by the government later in November about the future of the Supporting People programme.
The announcement is expected to include funding levels for the next 3 years and confirmation as to whether the ring fence will be retained or not. If the ring fence were removed local authorities would be able to decide how much to spend on housing support within the limits of their overall budget.
Ministers have the power to keep the ringfence, to lift it completely or to phase in its lifting. Ministers could decide to lift it in some areas
to give the government an opportunity to carry out an evaluation before deciding how to proceed in other areas.
The SP Enabling Unit is aware that many service providers have concerns about the ring fencing being lifted at this stage of the programme. There are concerns that less intense housing support services which have a preventative focus would be at risk as well as services aimed at less popular sections of society such as those using drugs or alcohol. These concerns are shared by Duncan MacNaughton of Perth and Kinross Council who recently stated that 'In Perth and Kinross, as in a great many local authority areas in Scotland, the Supporting People grant has been used to fund a rich variety of services. There is a healthy balance of external and council provided services.
The people who use housing support services are often those who have hitherto been somewhat neglected: not only people with addictions and people with mental health problems but also those who don't necessarily fall into any specific client group but who are simply finding it very hard, for whatever reason, to maintain their tenancies. Providers have been able, through Supporting People, to deliver sustained support, albeit in small doses of a few hours per week. This support has been enabling and empowering. It has performed a key preventative function.
Our main worry, in Perth and Kinross, about the possibility that the ring fencing of the SP budget will be lost is that the money could be diverted away from helping this type of person through preventative support, and into the traditional types of community care service for the traditional community care client groups, involving large amounts of direct personal care. A related issue is that there would be the potential for resources to be channelled away from external agencies and re-directed to council provided services.
These developments would mean that much of the progress that housing support providers have made over the last few years in sustaining individuals and communities would be undone.’
It is important that whatever happens to ringfencing steps are taken to build on what has been achieved under SP.
Preparing for the Comprehensive Spending Review
The Scottish Executive has been conducting various pieces of research, review and evaluation in order to capture evidence of what the SP programme is achieving in Scotland. This has been carried out in preparation for this years spending review when Scottish Ministers will determine the budgets for public services for the next 3 years.
Whilst we do not know what the decisions will be, what follows is an overview by the Scottish Executive of the evidence collected and the arguments being presented to Scottish Ministers.
1. Cost Benefits Research (CBA)
Tribal HCH was commissioned to identify what benefits are derived from the SP programme. The research cites quality of life benefits through the use of real life stories, but the main focus of the research is on the financial benefits of the programme.The key findings of the report are summarised below:
Effects of Supporting People
Tribal identify 3 broad outcomes of SP:
- Assisting people to cope with problems and increasing the probability that they will 'move on' to a completely independent life.
- Provide permanent support which maintains the recipients ability to live in the community indefinitely and,
- Provide support which reduces the risk that a household will become unable to maintain an independent way of life
Value for money
The report shows that for the £402m annual expenditure on SP monetary benefits of £441m can be identified. These monetary benefits are generally savings or avoided costs, such as avoided care home or hospital admissions, health care treatment and prevented homelessness. Tribal has concluded that this shows that the programme offers value for money.
Avoided costs
Tribal combined the eligible client groups and formed 'supergroups' and looked at the avoided costs for each of these groups. It found that avoided costs in excess of the SP spend, could be evidenced for the following groups:
- Older People and people with physical disabilities
- People with learning disabilities
- Homeless and related group
For some other groups, such as people with mental health problems the avoided costs were identified as being lower than the SP expenditure. However, as with all the client groups considered, the value of the quality of life benefits to individuals and their carers/families was not measured in financial terms but recognised as being of significant value to individuals and society.
Please note that whilst Tribal HCH completed their research in July 2007 the final report is not yet publicly available as it refers to unpublished date from research in England which is due to be issued later this year.
2. Unit Costs
The Scottish Executive was aware through data that was being collected in Scotland and England that the programme costs twice as much in Scotland when looking at average spend per client. Tribal HCH was appointed to conduct research into the unit costs of the programme and give an explanation for the differences between England and Scotland.
Tribal found that:
- The majority of clients in receipt of SP in England are older people
- The costs of services for older people are significantly lower in England (3 times lower) than in Scotland
- Services to older people in England are provided on a much larger scale across larger geographical areas than in Scotland. Economies of scale may account for the lower cost of services in England.
- More SP money is spent supporting people with learning disabilities in Scotland than is spent in England.
- People with significant disabilities are supported to live in their own tenancies in Scotland in line with initiatives such as 'The Same as You '.
3. Impact Monitoring
The Scottish Executive has been monitoring the impact the efficiency savings set by Ministers and the redistribution of funding has had on service provision. It has done this by requiring local authorities to submit monitoring reports and these have been analysed by GEN consulting. The main findings from the GEN report produced in July 2007 are:
- The predicted service capacity reduction is mixed, with limited net capacity reductions. The main client group affected adversely is older people, with fewer clients being supported although there are increases in visiting support hours.
- There is evidence that Local Authorities are making savings and that these are as a result of improved contract values, budget restrictions on providers, and closing or remodelling services.
- There is limited evidence of substantial job losses which was anticipated initially.
- Income from charging is still small (2% of grant)
- There is some evidence of financial strain experienced by local authorities and external providers and this was also evidenced in the SPEU research
4. Outcomes Research
The Scottish Executive gathers information and data about SP such as the numbers of people in receipt of support, the hours they receive and the types of services provided but it currently has little information about the real outcomes for people of the intervention provided. For this reason DTZ was commissioned to research and recommend an outcomes framework.
DTZ has completed this research and has produced a report which outlines a possible outcomes framework. Following on from this DTZ has now been commissioned to manage a pilot of the outcomes framework. This pilot will involve 7 local authorities and a range of service providers.
The Outcomes research will look at introducing a monitoring approach that will evidence the experience for service users. It is hoped that this will be used by providers to evidence how they support service users and this information in turn can be submitted to the Scottish Executive showing what impact the programme is having nationally. Craigforth has been commissioned to evaluate the outcomes framework pilot. A research advisory group is being set up to help guide this work. More information on the Outcomes work can be found on the Scottish Executive website.
In addition to the various sources of information above, Scottish Ministers will also be alerted to additional financial pressures, such as the costs of upskilling the Housing Support workforce.
5. Cost implications of workforce registration
The Scottish Executive along with the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC), Supporting People Enabling Unit (SPEU), Community Care Providers Scotland (CCPS) and the Workforce Unit carried out a piece of work - and have identified that it will cost in the region of £120m to upskill the housing support workforce. In order for workers to register with the SSSC they will have to have particular qualifications. The register for housing support managers is due to open in 2010 after which it will be open to supervisors and staff. It is likely that staff will be able to apply to be registered without having gained the relevant qualifications, so long as they express a commitment to complete these within a particular timescale. However these details are yet to be finalised and will follow a consultation process.
The working group drew on information from; the Care Commission, provider surveys and LA returns to reach its conclusions. Essentially the group identified that there are in the region of 44,000 staff in Scotland providing housing support services. Of these 44,000 staff it is estimated that 20% of these staff are currently undertaking qualifications however there are potentially in the region of 12,000 workers, 6,000 supervisors and 1,500 managers who still require to undertake qualifications.
Scottish Ministers have been alerted to this additional funding pressure being experienced by service providers.
The Scottish Executive is also using information about the impact of SP on services and providers contained in research carried out and reported on by Tony Homer. This research was commissioned by the SP Enabling Unit and it is available here.
Top of page
|
