Local Area Agreements and Local Strategic Partnerships

88. In April 2009, the ringfence on funding for the Supporting People programme was lifted and, from April 2010, funding is due to be paid through the Area Based Grant. The Area Based Grant is a non-ringfenced general grant, and therefore its use is not directly monitored. It is for local authorities to decide how best to use the totality of their non-ringfenced general grant (Revenue Support Grant and Area Based Grant) in support of local, regional and national priorities. Local authorities' outcomes will only be measured via the National Indicator Set[105] and their Local Area Agreement targets. This is in line with the recommendations of our report on the Balance of Power[106] between central and local government.

89. There is an expectation that priority outcomes for Supporting People services will be agreed by Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) and delivered through Local Area Agreements. However, as the Audit Commission's recent report Working Better Together highlights, LSPs themselves do not have direct responsibility for the spending of ABG, as this discretion remains with local authorities:

The White Paper Strong and Prosperous Communities described ABG as an enabler: allowing councils to focus resources on local priorities. It brings previously ring-fenced grants into a single pot for each council. ABG is allocated on a three-year basis and can be carried across financial years. The total amount of ABG for 2008 to 2011 is £4 billion. ABG is not new money. It is a local authority grant and the council cabinet must approve spending. Councils decide whether to allow the LSP to influence how all, or part of, ABG is spent.[107]

The same report states that "This may lead to some partners' disappointment"[108] and quotes the director of a Third Sector organisation who claimed that "'council colleagues will tell us that most of [the ABG] is actually already committed to keep existing services going. So there isn't really…any sort of flexibility on how the LSP can particularly influence that.'"[109]

90. In oral evidence, the Minister outlined the benefits he anticipated from lifting the ringfence on the Supporting People grant:

people in local areas […] [will] have the freedoms and flexibilities to assess local needs and plan services to meet them. […] It will also ensure that Supporting People services are not seen in individual silos but can be mainstreamed across council services more generally. One hopes that that will drive innovation and get people working together more effectively. There is also quite a lot of research […] to show that the more decisions can be taken at local level as opposed to being directed and driven from the centre the more efficient and effective the delivery of those services.[110]

However, the difficulties with delivering Supporting People through LSPs are highlighted by many witnesses to our inquiry. Indeed, they are even alluded to in the Supporting People Strategy itself, which refers to "the challenges of including Supporting People within this new local arrangement."[111]

ENSURING THE PROFILE OF SUPPORTING PEOPLE IS MAINTAINED IN LSPS

91. A major fear amongst witnesses—echoing concerns we have already discussed above—is the potential loss of specialist focus on housing-related support as arrangements are subsumed within wider LSP arrangements:

Third sector providers felt they were not adequately represented on LSPs. In particular they generally did not have relationships with and were not understood by the CVS [Council for Voluntary Service], which was often the third sector voice on the LSP.[112]

Several witnesses referred to the fact that including the Supporting People grant in the Area Based Grant bolstered the overall fund considerably, although most thought it unlikely that this funding contribution would be matched by an increased focus on housing-related support. Provider organisations Byker Bridge and Brighter Futures offered the illustration that "A 40% contribution from SP to [the Area Based Grant] "buys" service users just 1% of the targets within [the] LAA. It is unlikely that Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) are taking 40% of their membership from people with a knowledge, understanding or interest in Supported Housing."[113] CLG's take on this subject was that "Somebody who understands housing-related support should be able to sit on the LSP."[114]

92. Many witnesses feared that, due to a lack of understanding of the real benefits of housing-related support, local authority cabinet members (who retain overall decision-making powers as to how the Area Based Grant will be spent) may make decisions which deliberately exclude certain vulnerable groups who are 'unpopular' with voters. The majority of witnesses also felt that pressures on local authority budgets, particularly in the area of social care, would push decision-makers to refocus former Supporting People monies on more 'immediate' and critical needs, rather than preventative services.

93. However, in oral evidence, Greg Roberts of Westminster City Council pointed out that the benefits to the community as a whole from providing housing-related support to vulnerable people were usually sufficiently compelling for this risk to be mitigated:

I think it is about coming back to the frontline service delivery, and being able to make the case that this housing-related support service […] if that was not there, then the people who are living here would go out and they would become more chaotic as a result of their substance misuse, so crime would go up, more people would be hospitalised […][115]

94. Roy Irwin of the Audit Commission put his trust in the natural accountability within local partnership arrangements:

This is a partnership arrangement so this is not just local authorities acting in isolation. One of the strengths of Supporting People—[which] in fact probably […] is the predecessor of some more effective local and strategic partnerships—is that there has been the kind of joint arrangements which means that local authorities are accountable to their partners on this matter. So, although they will be under pressure —as will other people—the discussion around how to deal with resources will be a partnership discussion, not just a local authority deciding to hive off things.[116]

95. CLG-commissioned work on proving the financial benefits of Supporting People services has been excellent, and this is acknowledged across the board as having been critical to making the case for housing-related support services within partnerships. In 2006, CLG commissioned Cap Gemini to undertake research into the financial benefits of the Supporting People programme.[117] This research aimed to demonstrate what the financial impact would be if Supporting People funded services were replaced by the "most appropriate positive alternatives for meeting the group's needs (i.e. the approach which would, in the absence of Supporting People, provide the highest degree of independent living.)"[118] This research found that the Supporting People programme delivered net benefits to the Exchequer of £2.77 billion per annum against an overall investment of £1.55 billion,[119] (and in an updated version of the report published in July 2009 this had increased to £3.4 billion for a £1.6 billion investment).[120] The report also concluded that "consideration of financial values alone is insufficient to fully understand the benefits of Supporting People."[121]

96. In oral evidence, the Minister was keen to point out CLG's continuing work on demonstrating the financial benefits of Supporting People services. He referred to "[a new] financial modelling tool that we are making available at a local level [which] will demonstrate the increased bang for the buck that people get from these services. That will guard against the possibility of people not wanting to fund services for those sorts of groups."[122] Both Sitra and the National Housing Federation told us that this new local tool would be very important, although several local authorities commented on the fact that the promised financial tool had not appeared at the time of them submitting evidence:

[North Somerset] has made use of the CLG 'Research into the financial benefits of the Supporting People programme' to promote understanding and confidence in the programme's investments. The availability of CLG's revised tool for identifying local financial benefits even more accurately is eagerly awaited, and no time will be lost in applying it to joint commissioning ventures of the future.[123]

RELUCTANCE TO BENEFIT OTHER AGENCIES' BUDGETS

97. Evidence to this inquiry suggested that some LSP partners may be reluctant to back Supporting People services as the savings made from investment in preventative services are often to the benefit of other agencies' budgets. As Nigel Hamilton of Sitra explained, "The expenditure is very much with the local authority and the savings maybe a couple of years down the line and the savings may be to the criminal justice system or the health services […]"[124]

98. We asked whether it was easy for Supporting People teams to make the economic argument for increased funding for preventative services that may benefit other agencies' budgets in the longer term. In response, we were given an example of a newly opened Supporting People scheme costing the local authority £300 per week per resident, where one resident had previously been in residential care costing £1,200 per week.[125] Financial information was therefore felt to be available to make the case for preventative services to LSPs. Hampshire County Council agreed with this view but added that, whilst the benefits of Supporting People at a local level could be demonstrated, it would be helped by "Government agencies and agendas recognising the role that Supporting People will play".[126]

99. Helen Williams of the National Housing Federation also believed that any disincentive to invest in preventative services could be alleviated if local partners had a stronger national steer:

I think one of the things that could perhaps be looked at is what more the Department of Health and CLG could do to encourage health and adult social services to invest in preventative services.[127]

Again, the Cap Gemini research and the new local financial tool were seen to be very useful in making the case for investment in preventative services, as was the Supporting People Outcomes Framework[128]:

In Stoke-on-Trent, particularly with the support of data from the Supporting People outcomes framework, we are increasingly able to attract resources to housing-related support services or other ancillary services that facilitate service user outcomes.[129]

100. Research by CLG, the Housing Corporation and the Care Services Improvement Partnership in 2008 also concluded that the Outcomes Framework was an important tool to support the process of commissioning for common outcomes shared across health, housing and social care.[130]

101. CLG is supporting work being undertaken by Government Offices in the regions to support improved inter-agency working around Supporting People services. Evidence from Hampshire suggests that this work has been effective:

I think the information that has come out from government departments more recently, in terms of recognising the value of the services that Supporting People fund, especially in the South East, which is what I can really talk about, has been very good. There was recently a paper produced under the auspices of GOSE from a health angle, looking at the role that housing-related support and supported housing can play in meeting the health agenda […][131]

THE CASE FOR RETAINING SUPPORTING PEOPLE TEAMS AND COMMISSIONING BODIES AS THE DELIVERY ARM FOR HOUSING-RELATED SUPPORT WITHIN LSPS

102. Many witnesses express concern about the 'immaturity' of local partnership and joint commissioning arrangements. On this basis, they consider that it is too early to lift the ringfence on funding for Supporting People funding. Helen Williams of the National Housing Federation, for example, told us, "our feeling is that that kind of maturity and joint commissioning across traditional silos is not there in every area so it is perhaps too early for that [the lifting of the ringfence] to have happened."[132]

103. The Audit Commission's recent report on the operation of Local Strategic Partnerships pointed out that "the opportunity for joint commissioning is one of the synergies that should arise from local joint working."[133] However, it also highlighted that the reality on the ground was rather different, concluding that "while many LSPs have developed service commissioning plans, there are significant gaps."[134] The Supporting People programme has brought about some excellent examples of joint commissioning, particularly in higher performing local authority areas, and the evidence we heard showed that Supporting People Commissioning Bodies have developed into the "predecessor of some more effective local and strategic partnerships".[135] It is important that this excellence is not lost and so, in common with many witnesses, we therefore see a continuing role for Supporting People Commissioning Bodies and teams as "operational commissioning bodies" within LSPs, as Cllr Barnard of the LGA described to us in oral evidence:

If the LSP has as its core priorities reducing inequalities and setting out very clearly a preventative agenda one of the great benefits of the Supporting People agenda and linking [needs] assessments together is an effective commissioning body […] You start with the LSP at the top which says this is the broad agenda for the local authority area and underneath it is the operational commissioning body.[136]

104. This approach is also being promoted by CLG. In its oral evidence to us, the Department acknowledged the concerns about LSPs operating at strategic levels and possibly not having the knowledge or expertise to make strong commissioning decisions:

We are asking local authorities to ensure that through the LSP they have very clear links from their (Supporting People) commissioning body, which is their strategic partner, to the local strategic partnership […][137]

Again, this reflects the conclusions of the Audit Commission:

Involvement in commissioning should reflect the layers of partnership governance. The strategic layer sets overall direction and reviews overall progress. At the executive and operational layers, there are opportunities to influence detailed commissioning decisions by others. Accountability, however, remains with the council and the partners involved.[138]

TWO-TIER ISSUES

105. The Audit Commission's Working Better Together report shows that counties and districts demonstrate significantly less experience in joint commissioning than their London Borough and Metropolitan Borough peers.[139] Evidence from Southdown Housing Association gives an example of why this may be the case:

Although Local Area Agreements are meant to include the District and Borough in […] the subsequent allocation of funds, for Councils in two-tier authorities we see a mismatch between the pressure facing District and Borough Councils and the funding being channelled through local authorities. SP grant is currently paid to County Councils when many of the responsibilities around housing and homelessness are the remit of Districts and Boroughs. In our experience there can be poor communication between SP teams/commissioning and Districts/Boroughs. This poses concerns about how well they can work together in the future environment of Area Based Grants (we have lesser concerns about this in Unitary Authorities).[140]

106. We asked Hampshire, a county council, how they had addressed the challenges of delivering Supporting People in a two-tier area. They believed that the most effective approach had been to devolve as much decision-making as possible to districts, whilst facilitating their involvement in the development of the overarching county programme. This approach has worked well and the Hampshire Supporting People programme is the only one operating in a two-tier authority to be rated as delivering an "Excellent service with Excellent prospects for Improvement" in its Audit Commission inspection.

107. However, despite success in some areas, the evidence suggests that the challenges of delivering Supporting People services in two-tier areas have received insufficient focus to date.[141]

CONCLUSIONS - LOCAL AREA AGREEMENTS AND LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS

108. The increased flexibility and local decision-making which the removal of the ring-fence and the funding of Supporting People services through Area-Based Grant has brought is a positive development. However, the maturity of some local strategic partnerships, and consequently the ability of some LSP partners effectively to commission services jointly, is in doubt. There is a risk of losing some of the excellent practice which has been developed in the commissioning of these services. For these reasons we consider that Supporting People services require some continued protection as LSPs continue to develop.

109. We also share witnesses' concerns that, as budgets come under ever greater pressure, and competition for funds in the Area Based Grant increases, Supporting People services risk losing priority in the new structures. We have already noted the risks posed by the potential loss of SP governance and delivery structures in the context of service user involvement. Expertise in commissioning and procurement of SP services could be lost to LSPs and local authority generic procurement teams. Service users, and providers, find it difficult to engage with local strategic partnerships: both need the additional "layer" of the SP commissioning body to have strong links with the LSP. The SP commissioning body also needs to have strong links with the LSP to overcome any reluctance on the part of partners in LSPs to invest in services which stand to benefit other agencies' budgets. CLG is to be congratulated on the work which it has done to enable the benefits of investment in Supporting People services to be demonstrated—Cap Gemini research, development of the local finance tool, and the Outcomes Framework—but the right people still need to be there in the LSP to make the case.

110. A number of the recommendations we have already made are pertinent to these issues and should help to maintain the protection of Supporting People services in the new local government landscape which we have concluded is necessary. Those recommendations include: making the Outcomes Framework a mandatory requirement, to ensure a continued focus on successful outcomes for service users; continuing to promote the local finance tool, so that local SP teams can demonstrate the value of investment in their work to other services; retaining the existing Supporting People governance and delivery structures. Later on in this report we also recommend that CLG take a stronger leadership role in joining up agendas with other government departments at national level to set an example of effective partnership working at local levels.

111. In addition to the findings described above, we have also noted the particular problems in delivering Supporting People services in two-tier areas, and a lack of guidance as to how to manage the process in those circumstances. We recommend that CLG ensure that guidance is drawn up and disseminated for delivering housing-related support in two-tier areas. CLG does not necessarily have to be the author, or main instigator, of this guidance: indeed, in line with the conclusions of our recent Report The Balance of Power, on the relationship between local and central government, we consider that it may be more appropriate for local government itself—whether through the LGA or otherwise—to take the lead in ensuring that this is done.

Regional and sub-regional working

SUPPORTING THE NEEDS OF MOBILE GROUPS

112. The importance of joining up local authorities' different approaches to identifying need, and providing services, in housing-related support arises as a key issue in evidence from witnesses. This is particularly the case in respect of service users who tend to move between local authority areas to access the services they need, as illustrated by Refuge:

Above all it must be recognised by Government that funding for domestic violence services cannot be wholly determined by local need. Women experiencing domestic violence often flee across local authority boundaries and reciprocal arrangements need to be put in place.[142]

The Supporting People Strategy outlined the Government's expectation that local authorities should "Work collaboratively to plan services at the sub-regional and regional levels […]" and "[…] plan to meet the needs of mobile groups, by working more collaboratively to plan services at the sub-regional and regional levels."

113. However, evidence from many witnesses indicates that there is still a long way to go to join up local authorities' policy and practice with regard to Supporting People services. Of particular concern is the operation of 'local connection policies', described as "NIMBY-ism"[143] by Sitra, whereby local authorities refuse services to users from other local authority areas. With the lifting of the ringfence and associated grant conditions, specific instructions from CLG for local authorities not to use local connection criteria are no longer in force:

Current grant arrangements force cross-border consideration and commissioning without protectionism. Without this imperative, even neighbouring authorities may take self interest decisions which could have a domino effect in service collapse […][144]

114. In oral evidence, Maurice Condie of Byker Bridge claimed that he had already witnessed examples of such behaviour. He told us that "The reality is that the lifting of the ring-fence is already leading to […] an increased beating of the parish boundaries, 'If you are not from this local authority area, you can't have services here'."[145]

115. CLG suggested that it believed such claims were being exaggerated, referring to the fact that 122 "Excellent"[146] local authorities were already operating without grant conditions "and those transitional groups have not found the door shut. […]"[147] We asked what proof CLG had to substantiate this view and were told that

local authorities will monitor that through a client record form. We get the information because the University of St Andrews does all the analysis. We can see the client groups and into which local areas they are importing or exporting. We are aware of it but we do not monitor it […] local authorities monitor it much more closely because those that do much more importing than exporting obviously want to enter into dialogue with neighbouring authorities to do some joint commissioning.[148]

116. Local authority witnesses were able to provide examples of joined up services, such as Bath and North East Somerset's cross-authority service for ex-offenders and Cambridgeshire's early work on becoming the lead commissioner for domestic violence services for both Cambridgeshire and a neighbouring authority. However, evidence from many witnesses, including Hact, showed us that many vulnerable individuals were still not receiving the services they need:

Through our work, grounded in our experience, we are very aware that there are needs that are not being met. It is important that Government understands where gaps exist and ensure resources are available to meet them. Specific attention should be paid to those groups where official statistics do not adequately reflect reality and where people face considerable discrimination and disadvantage, such as refugees, new migrants, BME communities and Gypsies and Travellers. […] CLG and the Homes and Communities Agency should continue to invest in developing needs mapping exercises at the regional level.[149]

117. In her oral evidence to the Committee, CLG's Lorraine Regan admitted that there is "much more to be done"[150] to encourage LAs to joint commission, particularly for 'transient' groups.

IDENTIFYING NEED

118. Research by CLG, the Housing Corporation and the Care Services Improvement Partnership in 2008[151] drew attention to the challenges for housing-related support commissioners in bringing together housing, health and social care to provide an integrated approach to delivering housing-related support. The research report concluded that the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment and Strategic Housing Market Assessment "should be aligned to provide a local assessment of housing-related support needs, with common metrics in order to enable the aggregation of data at a regional level."[152] This recommendation was intended to achieve a "common regional evidence base [to] facilitate the identification of regional priorities to establish where and for whom there is a need for regionally or sub-regionally commissioned services[…]"[153] The report also recommends that Government Offices, Regional Development Agencies and Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnerships support the development of a regional framework.[154]

119. However, some of the evidence we received suggested that, given the mixed progress with the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, the increased challenge to include housing and housing-related support considerations may be a tall order in some areas. The Audit Commission, for example, noted:

Adult social care adopted Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNAs) in 2007. These require local authorities, with their partners in health, to identify the needs of vulnerable people to inform the planning and delivery of services. Evidence from inspections shows that progress to achieve JSNAs has been slow in many areas. Housing-related support issues are not uniformly addressed where JSNAs have been carried out. In the small number of local authorities where this has been achieved, there is evidence that it has successfully raised awareness of the importance of housing-related support in addressing the care and support needs of vulnerable people and has promoted the joint commissioning of services to meet needs.[155]

Needs assessments for housing-related support have been continually updated in better ALAs such as the London Borough of Westminster [...] along with SP/housing-related support strategies. There is uncertainty about the continuing arrangements for updating housing-related support needs and it is unclear whether the JSNA will be a good enough vehicle for this purpose. The JSNA guidance for Local Authorities does not reference the inclusion of Supporting People services.[156]

120. In oral evidence, the Minister told us that "a lot has been done to get CLG working more closely with other government departments, but I acknowledge that more could still be done on it. […] We are discussing within the Department of Health the inclusion of a reference to housing-related support in the second publication of the JSNA guidance."[157] The Minister's conclusions are reinforced by the findings of the final report of the Audit Commission's research, Supporting People Programme 2005-2009, which was published in October 2009, shortly before the publication of our report. The Audit Commission recommends that central government should consider "working across central government departments to review and revise guidance on policy and practice that is allied to housing-related support planning and delivery; and strengthen the recognition of the role of housing-related support within associated guidance. This should include Joint Strategic Needs Assessments […]"[158]

CONCLUSIONS: REGIONAL AND SUB-REGIONAL WORKING

121. Once again, we find that the tools for addressing these issues are already in place: namely, joint strategic needs assessments. Effective implementation of JSNAs should ensure effective identification of need for Supporting People services across a region, including those of mobile and transient client groups. Identification of that need, and discussion across local authority boundaries of how it can best be met, should obviate the danger of local authorities applying inappropriate 'local connection' policies. We recommend that the development of joint strategic needs assessments be accelerated as a priority in planning for the provision of Supporting People services. Specifically, we recommend that a reference to housing-related support be included in the JSNA guidance.

Comprehensive Area Assessment

122. In September 2003, the Audit Commission began a programme of targeted inspections of all Supporting People administering local authorities. Inspections were carried out with partner inspectorates the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP). Each inspection team also included a service user.

123. From April 2009, assessments of the performance of housing-related support services for vulnerable people became integral to the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA). CAA is a new way of assessing local public services in England. It examines how well councils are working together with other public bodies to meet the needs of the people they serve. CAA is a single joint assessment made by the Audit Commission, the Care Quality Commission, Ofsted, and HM Inspectorates of Probation, Constabulary and Prisons.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

124. CAA will report performance against the National Indicator Set. Two of the indicators in the National Indicator Set relate directly to Supporting People services:

• NI 141 Number of vulnerable people achieving independent living
• NI 142 Number of vulnerable people who are supported to maintain independent living

125. The Supporting People programme also contributes to a number of other indicators. However none of these indicators is mandatory for inclusion within Local Area Agreements. Of the 198 indicators within the National Indicator Set against which local authorities' performance will be assessed by the Audit Commission, local authorities are only required to select 35 for inclusion within their Local Area Agreement. This leaves a large number of witnesses concerned that local authorities will not prioritise Supporting People outcomes in their Local Area Agreements, as Byker Bridge and Brighter Futures state:

Local authorities had the opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to 'mainstreaming' SP by selecting NI141 or 142 [in their LAAs]; however: 36% did not, 48% expect to discontinue SP services in the next 12 months. Therefore providers conclude that preventative services will not be mainstreamed, strategically planned or jointly commissioned by LSPs [Local Strategic Partnerships].[159]

126. In oral evidence to the Committee, CLG argued that

There is a range of other indicators where SP can contribute and local authorities understand that. They may well not have picked Supporting People but something around re-offending or getting people with mental health problems back into accommodation. There are at least another 20 or 30 indicators to which Supporting People can contribute, so I do not believe it is necessary to have the housing-related support indicators there to make sure it is maintained and delivered in a local area.[160]

127. The Audit Commission concurred with this view and pointed out that, whilst there is increased flexibility for local authorities to select indicators for inclusion in their Local Area Agreements, this does not limit the Audit Commission's scope of inquiry. Roy Irwin described the process for us:

The local area agreement looks at 35 key headline indicators. The Commission and the other inspectorates are not reduced to looking at just those 35. We look at all 198 national indicators and local management information as well if that covers an issue that we think is relevant in that locality. For example, if somebody negotiated a local area agreement and did not include Supporting People indicators (of which there are two) then that is fine because it is their local agreement, that is not a problem. However, if from the feedback from other sources it became clear that homeless people, people leaving care or people leaving prisons in their locality became more and more desperate and disparate in terms of the services then we would start to ask questions of the local authority, how they are handling these demand issues, irrespective of their local area agreement.[161]

128. Rachel Williams of the National Housing Federation disagreed with this assessment of how the process would work, questioning the effectiveness of the CAA in circumstances where the LSP has not adopted Supporting People-related targets:

one of the challenges is if, in an area, a local strategic partnership has not adopted targets that are focused on meeting housing-related support needs, how effective in those circumstances will the Comprehensive Area Assessment be at looking at the needs of vulnerable people. We heard from the Audit Commission and I think in their framework there is an emphasis that they will look at how services reach vulnerable people and reach the socially excluded, but if targets have not been adopted locally then I think there is a question as we move through to the new Comprehensive Area Assessments how effective it will be in that regard.[162]

129. We were therefore interested to hear Alan MacDonald of HM Inspectorate of Probation also expressing a lower degree of confidence in CAA's ability to interrogate services in the same way as the former inspection regime:

CAA provides a lighter touch; it is a different arrangement. It is a more mature way of looking at local authorities but undoubtedly it is the case that there are not the same resources that are going into inspection as hitherto. In terms of some of the fine graining issues you are talking about, I do not think that CAA will interrogate to that level of detail.[163]

KEEPING USERS AT THE HEART OF CAA

130. The Audit Commission's CAA Framework states that

As inspectorates, we have specific responsibilities in relation to people whose circumstances make them vulnerable, including children, and in relation to people who may make others vulnerable, such as offenders and people under probation supervision. We will pay particular attention in our assessments to people whose personal circumstances present a risk to themselves or to others. We will make sure that their needs are fully considered, including their needs for settled accommodation and employment. We will report clearly where their needs are not being met or where we have concerns about them being met in future, allowing for the different levels of risk and urgency associated with such circumstances.[164]

In oral evidence, Roy Irwin also explained that "In terms of CAA […] part of our work is to try to get a view from users of services locally around a range of services. There is a danger in having really well-presented documentation that says how wonderful everything is and some of it will be true. Our job is to work out where it is true and where it can be evidenced from other sources and where it is not true and where we need to do further work."[165]

131. However, as with many witnesses, Peter Rush of Hampshire County Council expressed doubt that real user engagement would be possible:

Under the Supporting People inspection process […] [inspectors] had the time and the opportunity to go out and talk to a number of service users […] so they could see, so they could identify that slow process of improvement in outcome that has been made for individuals. With the process that we are talking about now, there is the danger […] with it being a much higher level process, and much shorter in time, taking fewer resources, that that would be lost.[166]

Mr. Rush also suggested that

CAA is something that is untried to a large extent and, especially in a two-tier authority, one Comprehensive Area Assessment that assesses all aspects of the performance of Hampshire County council, the eleven district and borough councils, Hampshire NHS, the police and fire authority there, it is asking a lot of one assessment to pick up on the nuances of one particular programme without falling back on a crude measure of how are you doing against the national indicators […][167]

132. Acknowledging this challenge for inspectors, we suggested to CLG that the quality of a Comprehensive Area Assessment might rely too heavily on individual inspectors' knowledge and expertise of housing-related support. CLG assured us that "We are very confident about the Audit Commission's moderation process and the standards it sets in terms of report writing and its findings on the CAA. A very robust methodology has been developed."[168] However, Greg Roberts of Westminster told us that the introduction of some basic standard frameworks around Supporting People services would give inspectors a much more robust basis from which to draw their conclusions about the quality and effectiveness of local services:

There needs to be a clear strategic framework in place, so the authority can demonstrate the links between their strategies for all the principal client groups and how housing-related support fits into that. There needs to be a clear commissioning framework, so where a decision is taken around the commissioning procurement of these services, there needs to be a clear contract monitoring framework; how do you actually know, as an authority, what is going on in these projects, and how do the outcomes of those individuals actually feed into your targets. I think if the inspection regime becomes about looking at those national indicators and seeing whether or not you are in the top quartile, the middle quartile, the bottom quartile, that becomes too blunt.[169]

133. CLG's memorandum stressed the important role that the new Regional Resource Teams now have to play in building accurate pictures of performance for CAA. These teams were created to help central government achieve Departmental Strategic Objectives and Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets relating to vulnerable adults and Local Strategic Partnerships to meet their LAA targets. Each resource team has a particular expertise across housing support and homelessness. CLG's memorandum to our inquiry states that

Although relatively new, these teams are proving to be a very useful resource within the regions and will also be a key element in the successful delivery of the Social Exclusion PSA 16[170] [by feeding] into the […] CAA process by ensuring that the Audit Commission have the additional information they require to get a clearer local picture of an authority, prior to undertaking a CAA.[171]

CONCLUSIONS

The inspection regime remains an important part of ensuring the accountability of councils for the quality of the services they provide. Nonetheless, as we have recently observed in our report on the Balance of Power, "local authorities remain subject to invasive central government scrutiny and interference"[172] and we concluded in that report that it "seems sensible to us to place more emphasis on assessing the success of partnership working in delivering the place-shaping role, rather than focusing on a large list of individual indicators."[173] We are therefore generally supportive of the principles behind Comprehensive Area Assessment.

134. We nonetheless retain some concerns about the likely effectiveness of CAA in the inspection of Supporting People services. We are doubtful of its ability to capture full and accurate feedback from service users. We are also concerned that the ability of inspections to pick up problems with housing-related services in circumstances where the LSP has not adopted any SP-related indicators will rely too heavily on individual inspectors' knowledge and expertise of housing-related support.

135. We do not consider mandatory SP-related performance indicators to be appropriate. Forcing local authorities to adopt such indicators would run counter to the devolutionary approach of local area agreements. We also believe that the implementation of the recommendations which we have already made—the retention of dedicated Supporting People teams and expertise, for example—should go a long way towards ensuring the maintenance of an appropriate focus on Supporting People services.

136. Nevertheless, with greater local freedoms, improved accountability is needed. To ensure that Comprehensive Area Assessment is capable of providing that accountability, therefore, we support the proposal by Westminster City Council and others that there should be a requirement for strategic commissioning and contract monitoring frameworks to be in place in each administering authority so that inspectors know where to look for the information they need for CAA. We also reiterate our recommendation that the Outcomes Framework should continue to be a requirement in all local authorities. The Outcomes Framework will be able to provide a clear focus for CAA inspectors' assessment of the effectiveness of SP services in an area.

137. Meanwhile, there are steps which should be taken by the inspectorates themselves to ensure robust and effective inspection. Crucial among these is ensuring service user input. The previous inspection regime was very effective at enabling such input; the new, lighter touch inspections may find it more difficult. We recommend that the inspectorates develop clear guidance and procedures for inspectors on ensuring user input to inspection results.

138. Finally, it bears adding that Comprehensive Area Assessment is new and, as yet, largely untested. It will be important to continue to review the outcome of CAA in the light of experience—not only, of course, in the context of the inspection of Supporting People-related services, but more widely—and to adjust the regime, and the elements such as those we have recommended above, which support it, to ensure that it remains both effective and also as unburdensome as possible.

A statutory basis for Supporting People?

139. Within Independence and Opportunity: Our strategy for Supporting People CLG considered the issue of placing the provision of SP services on a statutory basis. It concluded that "we do not, at this stage, consider it appropriate to introduce new legislation around housing support."[174]

140. Some witnesses' evidence suggests that pressure on budgets, compounded by current economic circumstances, means the Government should reconsider legislating on the provision of housing support services. However, Martin Cheeseman of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services reflected the common view that

Marginally, I would say it should remain on a voluntary basis, but it is arguable both ways. […] In some respects having the flexibility of a non-statutory basis helps. Against that, with the disappearance of the ringfence all of the good work done in Supporting People could get lost unless it is flagged and we would be back here in five years' time reinventing Supporting People.[175]

141. Peter West of the Care Quality Commission agreed, adding "We are interested in outcomes. I am not sure we are all that worried about whether or not it is statutory." [176]Moreover, Roy Irwin of the Audit Commission pointed out that "it would be very difficult to specify exactly what [a statutory definition] might mean in a wide variety of places. […] I think at this stage it would be my view that local partnerships should be trusted to do a good job first and then only have it on a statutory basis as a rod of iron afterwards.[177]

142. Cllr Gareth Barnard of the Local Government Association felt it more important to raise the profile of housing-related support and encourage more joined-up working between central government departments:

at this point we do not see joined-up thinking at policy level between the Department of Health and CLG […] That has huge planning implications for the future in terms of understanding the greater move towards independence. We would like to see a much closer tie-up between housing, housing-related support programmes and work on exclusion, cohesion and things like that. At the moment it is not quite there.[178]

Cllr Barnard's view echoes our own findings in our recent Balance of Power report in which we concluded that

A further issue is the extent to which CLG is taking other government departments with it. If a rebalancing of power is to take place, there has to be consistency and commitment across Whitehall. Local authorities will not be able to exert a leading place-shaping role unless they have influence over the full range of public services delivered at the local level. Individual government departments locked into a top-down mentality are a major, if not insurmountable, obstacle to achieving this.[179]

143. When we asked the Minister for an updated assessment as to whether there should be a statutory basis to protect the most vulnerable we were told:

Probably not. That is not what we are trying to do. What we are trying to do is decentralise and give people more power at local level. […] If you then say that you will enforce things by statute you run the risk of stifling innovation, decreasing flexibility and perhaps increasing bureaucracy, and it would probably be more expensive.[180]

144. We agree with the prevailing view amongst our witnesses that there is at present no strong case for putting Supporting People services on a statutory basis. Those services would be extremely difficult to define in legislation, and to attempt to do so would be to risk hampering attempts to join up health, social care and housing in a continuum of services appropriate to the needs of service users. We consider that the recommendations which we make elsewhere in this Report should be sufficient to protect Supporting People services. However, the situation should be monitored and we recommend that the case for placing SP services on a statutory basis be reconsidered at a later date in the light of the evolving social care agenda.

145. Meanwhile, CLG needs to take a stronger ambassadorial role amongst other Government Departments and agencies to promote housing-related support in the context of the health and social care policy areas. Its leadership is crucial in ensuring continued recognition of the value of Supporting People services, and setting a precedent for effective partnership working at local levels.

106   CLG Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2008-09, The Balance of Power: Central and Local Government, HC 33,
paras 63-64. Back

107   Audit Commission, Working Better Together, Managing Local Strategic Partnerships (April 2009) paras 96-97. Back

108   Ibid. para 97. Back

109   Ibid. Back

110   Q 301 Back

111   Communities and Local Government, Independence and Opportunity: Our Strategy for Supporting People, June 2007, p 27. Back

112   Ev 199 Back

113   Ev 70 Back

114   Q 348 Back

115   Q 198 Back

116   Q 4 Back

117   Cap Gemini (for Communities and Local Government), Research into the financial benefits of the Supporting People programme (January 2008). Back

118   Ibid. p 7. Back

119   Ibid. p 10. Back

120   Cap Gemini (for Communities and Local Government), Research into the financial benefits of the Supporting People programme (July 2009) p 9. Back

121   Cap Gemini (for Communities and Local Government), Research into the financial benefits of the Supporting People programme (January 2008) p 20.

 Back

122   Q 350 Back

123   Ev 80 Back

124   Q 55 Back

125   Q 200 Back

126   Ibid. Back

127   Q 43 Back

128   See box on page 12 Back

129   Ev 114 Back

130   Communities and Local Government, Housing, care, support: a guide to integrating housing-related support at a regional level, November 2008, p 10. Back

131   Q 170 Back

132   Q 43 Back

133   Audit Commission, Working Better Together, Managing Local Strategic Partnerships (April 2009) para 101. Back

134   Ibid. Back

135   Q 4 Back

136   Q 294 Back

137   Q 348 Back

138   Audit Commission, Working Better Together, Managing Local Strategic Partnerships (April 2009) para 103. Back

139   Ibid. Back

140   Ev 77 Back

141   The LGA and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services referred to the "added complexity" and "unreasonable burden" of administering Supporting People in two-tier areas. Source: Q 275. Back

142   Ev 139 Back

143   Ev 198 Back

144   Ev 79 Back

145   Q 108 Back

146   The ringfence protected the overall Supporting People budget by requiring administering authorities to spend the funding on housing-related support or, for local authorities rated 'Excellent' under Comprehensive Performance Assessment, on wider welfare services. 'Excellent' authorities therefore had the opportunity to spend Supporting People funds on areas such as social care. Back

147   Q 354 Back

148   Qq 355-56 Back

149   Ev 179 Back

150   Q 357 Back

151   Communities and Local Government, Housing, care, support: a guide to integrating housing-related support at a regional level, November 2008. Back

152   Ibid. p 5 Back

153   Ibid. p 8 Back

154   Ibid. p 9 Back

155   Ev 173 Back

156   Ev 174 Back

157   Q 297 Back

158   Audit Commission (for Communities and Local Government), Supporting People Programme 2005-2009 (July 2009), p 62.

 Back

159   Ev 67 Back

160   Q 362 Back

161   Q 21 Back

162   Q 47 Back

163   Q 21 Back

164   Audit Commission, Comprehensive Area Assessment Framework Document, February 2009, p 43. Back

165   Q 26 Back

166   Q 205 Back

167   Q 202 Back

168   Q 360 Back

169   Q 202 Back

170   PSA 16: 'Increase the proportion of socially excluded adults in settled accommodation and employment education or training.'The PSA focuses on four at-risk client groups: care leavers; adult offenders under probation supervision; adults in contact with secondary mental health services; and adults with moderate to severe learning disabilities. Back

171   Ev 226 Back

172   CLG Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2008-09, The Balance of Power: Central and Local Government, HC 33,
para 66. Back

173   Ibid, para 84 Back

174   Communities and Local Government, Independence and Opportunity: Our Strategy for Supporting People, June 2007, p 30. Back

175   Q 267 Back

176   Q 268 Back

177   Q 15 Back

178   Q 264 Back

179   HC [2008-09] 33-I, para 96. Back

180   Q 314 Back