Council support

From: Who cares?

14/02/2012

Good news for thousands of people in Birmingham this week, as the council decided not to cut its Supporting People budget by as much as initially proposed.

Birmingham Council’s budget for 2012 said cuts to Supporting People – which as regular readers of this blog will know is one of my particular bugbears – would only be £1.9 million this year, rather than £3.8 million.

It’s a small victory for people who think the money does an excellent job of providing housing-related support to elderly and disabled people across the city. But more interesting is the way that the council was persuaded to change its mind.

Within the budget document is a report of responses to consultations on a variety of issues. It shows an online consultation did not support the cuts: ‘there was a strong feeling from all of the community forums and stakeholder meetings that this preventative service should not be reduced further,’ the report said.

One of the important points that respondents to the consultation made were that Supporting People ‘is a preventative service [and] reducing this would lead to cuts to some groups leading to higher costs later and additional costs to other services’. Overall benefit from preventative services should be taken into account in budget setting – not treated separately, it said.

It also identified a need for adult social care, homelessness, health, young people and probation services to work together more effectively – echoing a report from the government’s health select committee last week.

It’s great that the council reconsidered this cut – and listened to people who use the service when doing it.

More than that, it outlined points of improvements to existing services such as better awareness for residents of what services are available and better referral protocols to make sure people get the care they need.

But a smaller cut is still a cut, and if you look closely at the budget, there are proposals to deliver some services in group sessions, cut down on hours, consider charging people for wardens at supported housing, and consider closing the doors to new customers.

The council might also create waiting lists for access to SP funded services.

Should older, vulnerable and disabled people have to wait – perhaps years – for support they need? Almost certainly not. Birmingham Council has done an admirable job of cushioning people from the worst of the cuts, but there’s still so much more to be done.

Readers' comments (6)

mrkfm | 14/02/2012 2:46 pm
What would be equally interesting to know is what they are planning on cutting instead?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
F451 | 14/02/2012 4:28 pm
Ehrm, didn't Shapps proclaim several times that Councils need not cut anything from supporting people budgets as he had included enough money to cover them?

In which case, where is Birmingham's explanation of the need to cut and where is the Minister's wrath that they have either ignored him or found him to be lying?

Which is it: Shapps the liar or Shapps the impotent?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 14/02/2012 4:43 pm
Has Birmingham City Council done an admirable job?

I would strongly disagree.

BCC received the largest SP allocation when SP went live in 2003. BCC received £55,335,249 in SP funding for 2003/04.

In real terms that £55.335m would need to be £72.2m for 2012/13.

Instead it is only £41.8m AFTER this £1.9m saving.

The reality is that 42% LESS money is being spent on support by BCC in real terms than it was 9 years ago.

Thats £30.4m less this financial year

Thats about 5000 hours of support per day LESS.

Of course the above context and factual data is not just happening in Birmingham, but has happened systemically across the UK for the last 9 years.

Yet we know that every £1 spent on delivering support saves on average £2.68 to the public purse.

Another way of looking at this is that the £30.4m less in real terms BCC is spending on support this year means that it has foregone £81.5m in savings to Birmingham.

To add insult to injury and having worked with providers in most councils, BCC were one of the better SP administering authorities of the 150 in England. They were approachable, more knowledgeable than many other AAs and more proactive than most in fighting for SP knowing the savings it made elsewhere for the council.

So when these better than average efforts still result in massive real-term cuts to the spend on support, you begin to get a glimpse of how devastating the SP cuts have been countrywide and how vulnerable people have been shafted.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
F451 | 14/02/2012 4:49 pm
Perhaps an outcome of the SP funding under Labour was to make the blind walk and the deaf see Joe.

Whilst it may be argued by some that part of the purpose of SP is to 'cure' issues and pump-prime means of support, in the real world those in need of care for needs that can never improve have increased whilst funding has decreased as you point out.

It's a sorry state when authorities are vying with each other over who cut least rather than who provides enough service to meet the need.

Where does the unmet (cut) need go?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 14/02/2012 4:57 pm
F451 "Where does the unmet (cut) need go?

I blogged this goes into the 'chasm of vulnerability' back in September last year and some factaul detail there (http://wp.me/p1vuvL-1K).

Briefly, imagine a continuum of support and care, a 7 stage one from low level support at 1, med and high support and 2 and 3, and then the four stages of care at 4,5,6 & 7.

Most councils in care only paying on critical level of care (stage 7). Most SP teams paying on lowest level of support (stage 1). So all those inbetween are deemed too high need for support funding or too low need for care funding.

The vulnerable fall into the chasm!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
F451 | 14/02/2012 5:42 pm
How does that equate with the government's message that they will protect the vulnerable through these cuts and system changes?

Seems a little unfair to push people into chasms to 'protect' them - even in the national interest - but I suppose history is circular.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment