Supporting People cuts could leave thousands vulnerable
Thousands of vulnerable people could be forced to fend for themselves under expected cuts to the Supporting People programme, the National Housing Federation has warned.
The umbrella body is concerned that 438,000 vulnerable people could see their outreach support axed following Treasury instructions that all departments to model cutbacks of up to 40 per cent.
This includes women fleeing domestic violence, pensioners needing extra help and people with mental health problems.
The federation said the Supporting People programme, which also provides support for those with learning difficulties and ex-offenders, saves the taxpayer money by preventing cash being spent on health and social services, and the criminal justice system.
It fears that such a large cut to the programme would end up costing the taxpayer £1 billion a year in the long term through increased demand on services.
The NHF added that cuts to the Supporting People programme could lead to an increase in crime, with the closure of hostels for ex-offenders and a reduction in the number of ex-offender support workers. Almost 3,600 former prisoners across the country would receive less supervision and support to help them reintegrate into society.
A national evaluation has estimated that the £1.6 billion spent annually on housing-related support through the Supporting People programme generates savings of £3.41 billion to the public purse – by intervening earlier to prevent more severe problems arising, helping people live more independently and avoiding more costly acute services.
David Orr, chief executive of the federation, said: ‘Supporting People services help hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people lead independent and secure lives, and saves the taxpayer billions of pounds through the avoidance of costly hospital admissions and recourse to other services.
‘If the Supporting People budget is substantially cut it will lead to many vulnerable people losing the support they depend on, with the result that they will no longer be able to lead self-sufficient lives and will increasingly have to rely on acute health and other services.
‘The government has repeatedly said that it wants to protect the vulnerable and yet these cuts would hurt many of the most susceptible people in society. It would also lead to increased demands on the health service, social services and the criminal justice system – and have profound social repercussions.’
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (16)
Junior | 20/08/2010 4:39 pm
They do now a lot of these Housing Association Sheltered Schemes only have a Warden from 9 to 5 and guess who look after them the other Sheltered Residents do and God help them when the Warden is on holiday or on training. Many already unset in our area that more and more Shletered Residents coming in sick and sick and unable to help them selves and not be allocated to the Extra Care House. Lots Sheltered Residents believe the Housing Association only interested in money and that Local Authority not looking into whether people able or unable. You scatch my back and I will scatch your back
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 20/08/2010 4:47 pm
Don't worry - highly profitable Mears will come to their rescue with their magic wand of providing excellent care for less than any competitor.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alpha One | 23/08/2010 9:31 am
We really need to get away from this strange belief that it is for the state to provide all of these services. There are voluntary organisations out there that can do they job better, quicker and more efficiently than the state can.
Whilst some of the funding should come from the state, we need to re-engage with our philanthropic selves. In the US several billionaires are pledging to give up 50% and more of their fortune to charity as they don't need it. In this country not ONE person has made a similar pledge.
May be some of the rich people in this country give money quietly, but I doubt it is anywhere in the region of 50% of their fortune.
The main reason for this is the general belief that the state should pay for these things, and the mistaken taxation system which punishes the rich. Why would you even contemplate giving money to charity when 61% of your income will be removed in taxation and handed out to causes you don't necessarily believe deserve it?
If we stopped hounding the rich they may actually be more willing to donate some of their fortune to charity. It works in other countries it can work here.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23/08/2010 9:38 am
I am assuming that NHF are trying to link this to either the HB proposals and/or the general drive to cut costs demanded of local government.
Yet the removal of the ring fence allowed and does allow local ggovernment to raid the SP budgets for any other purpose whatsoever - something the NHF did NOT lobby against!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 23/08/2010 10:02 am
Alpha - fundementally you are right, but the fact that leaving funding to the off-chance that a few rich people may contribute is no way to run a viable service. You end up with peversities like the NSPCC where 75% of income raised is spent on raising income.
The latest Evening Standard campaign (to show that Cameronism works) is an example of the farce. There you have a company with £Millions in assets, and profits in dreamed of proportions, telling the good people to contribute their hard earned to raise funds that the paper could have written off as small change. The few high profile contributers, recruited to show we are all in it together, again could have raised the target themselves without breaking a sweat - but it was left to the poor and middle earners to dig deep, and like saps they did.
The only way you can run a sustainable and viable service is for there to be sustainable and viable funds.
Now if a multi-millionaire (like any in the cabinet for instance) were to entrust a fund to support a service, like the great Victorians did, then that is great. But look at what has happened to these institutions - one by one they have fallen to dependency on the State as the State has demanded more from them. Now the State is coming back with the biggest begging bowl ever, expecting the voluntary sector to take on more and more of the welfare state roles.
Collecting through the taxation system means that the selfish Millionaires have to contribute their share the same as the rest of us.
The taxation system does not punish the rich as you state. The 61% you quote is what is paid by those earning below £40kpa, indeed some sources put the figure at 75%. The burden of taxation has switched more to the lower earners ever since 1983 when National Insurance was lowered for the rich and for businesses but increased for the average and low waged. Since then Tory and Labour Governments have come up with ingenious ways to 'give back' to us all by taxing us more.
A fair taxation system, that sees business profits and individual income taxed in order to provide the service we have as a community agreed as being part of the civilised society to which we belong, is the only way of ensuring sustainable and accountable care.
Would you trust to your hospital services being available when you needed them based solely on fundraising? Seriously, would you?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Eric Blair | 23/08/2010 10:42 am
@ Alpha One - over my dead body. The welfare state is the most fundamentally civilised facet of our current society, and I will defend it with the last drop of my blood.
The philanthropic model you suggest doesn't actually exist. Certainly not in the US. Take the example of New Orleans following the flood disaster over there. The truth is that the State was more or less abandoned by the authorities following that.
In the aftermath, some unscrupulous property developers moved in and actually start evicting people (poor people, of course) from their homes. Private companies can do that sort of thing where there's an unfettered free market. Just think - that could be you.
I suspect your post is intended as a troll, but if not, your thinking is nonsensical.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Only One | 23/08/2010 10:49 am
I see a horse in the far distance, and now it's time to close the gate! Surely a more robust effort should have been made with the removal of the ringfencing.
This sector is good at 'with hindsight' reactions!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 23/08/2010 11:22 am
Accurate point Only One. Sadly the electorate can not even manage hindsight, so often bedazzled as they are by hype and spin, as is evidenced so often on these pages when it is all the fault of the left, the right, the others or aliens even.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 23/08/2010 11:22 am
Accurate point Only One. Sadly the electorate can not even manage hindsight, so often bedazzled as they are by hype and spin, as is evidenced so often on these pages when it is all the fault of the left, the right, the others or aliens even.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23/08/2010 11:47 am
Eric Blair | 23/08/2010 10:42 am
"The philanthropic model you suggest doesn't actually exist"
I think that you are incorrect Eric and Alpha is correct. There is infact a huge philanthropic movement in the US. This was started by Bill and Linda Gates in the early 90's and is already helping thousands of people around the world. Alpha is in fact underselling the donations. Contribtors such as bill gates and warren buffet have pledged around 99% of their $50 billion dollar fortunes to chartitable foundations, recently many other people such as George Lucas have signed up and pledged to donate at least 50% of their fortune during their lifetime (not after they have died)
Katrina is not a relevant example here as the charities which receive funding are mainly involved with education and healthcare in Africa.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment