Supporting People funding constitutes 33 per cent of the national area-based grant budget which funds local area agreement targets.
Preventative and enabling’ services, such as those provided by agencies currently funded through SP, save the Treasury a lot of money. For every £1.60 spent on these services, £3.40 on average is saved in NHS, local authority, criminal justice and other expensive interventions that would otherwise have to occur.
The refusal to retain the ring fence is unsurprising and the need to remove local SP eligibility criteria is necessary. However, this report could have been used as an opportunity to earmark an average of 33 per cent or more of area-based grant at local level for ‘preventative and enabling’ services while making clear that comprehensive area assessments would audit that commitment.
The failure of the CLG select committee to promote this idea should not discourage providers from realising that this is a win-win.
Earmarking revenue for ‘preventative and enabling’ services and removing local SP eligibility criteria would give providers confidence to diversify their services.
Michael Patterson, director, Support Solutions
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (1)
Joe Halewood | 13/11/2009 12:35 pm
Michael - I cant square "the refusal to retain the ringfence is unsurprising" with "however. this could have been used to earmark ana average of 33 per cent.."
That is precisely what a ringfence does. So why not remove the allegedly inflexible eligibility criteria and keep the ringfence then?
Councils state eligibility criteria is inflexible. though that is all they say and they done actually substantiate or even 'evidence' (the ugly Americanism that SP brought do much to the fore) that.
The eligibility criteria is so wide you can drive a coach and horses through it - not my word but those of almost all councils on the original SP eligibility criteria. Then councils reduced the eligibility criteria (unlawfully in my view) as the original contracts said any changes to eligibility need to be a variation agreed to in writing by providers. I note the remit and consuyltation of the select committee conveniently did not include any discussion on whther the ringfence was inflexible or not they just accepted it was!
Providers do need to diversify their services and remodel and be flexible - yet that applies to suppliers or providers in every sector be it public or private. They have to respond and preferably lead or be proactive in such areas. That is not the issue however. The issue is that even when the budget holders are made aware of the savings they will make they still ignore the basic financial necessitys because (a) providers are not collecctively strong enough to influence those decisions or, (b) SP teams are not strong enough to resist the raiding of these budgets and SP monies by larger internal departments such as social services.
The fact that SP teams are being disbanded altogether or whoittled down dramatically suggest the latter. So for central government to remove the ringfence especially when it was them who promised SP (and vulnerable people services, preventative or not) would definitively be placed on a secure legal and finacial footing is not just an opportunity missed, it is massively negligent.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment