CLG acknowledges threat to support services
Share
The government has acknowledged pressure on local authority budgets could harm Supporting People services once ring fencing is removed.
In a response to a report from MPs, the Communities and Local Government department says pressure on budgets is a ‘potential threat’ but insists its plans to get rid of a separate funding steam for Supported People are the right step to take.
The Supporting People grant, which funds supported housing services, was stripped of its ring fence in April this year, but remained as a separate named fund. However, from April this year, it will be amalgamated into a single ‘area-based grant’ to fund a range of services.
MPs on the Communities and Local Government Select Committee published a report in November, in which they backed the idea of the area-based grant, but said it should be ‘transparent’ how much of the grant was for Supporting People services.
It stated: ‘Local authorities should not be required to spend funds allocated on the basis of assessed need for housing related support on those services if they consider it would be better spent elsewhere.
‘They should, however, be required to justify, and account for, and decision to do so.’
In response to the recommendation, the CLG says it supports the call for transparency, and it will continue to give local authorities details of the Supporting People allocation within the area-based grant.
But it goes on to say it will not be able to tell how much of the Supporting People allocation is spent on housing support services.
‘The removal of the ring fence and the incorporation of the Supporting People funding into area-based grant means CLG no longer imposes separate reporting requirements on local authorities in respect of different funding streams,’ it states.
It adds the government will monitor the provision of housing support services through its national indicator set, and quarterly data sets submitted by local authorities.
The National Housing Federation described the CLG’s response as a ‘missed opportunity’.
Federation assistant director Helen Williams said: ‘We are pleased that the government recognises the need for transparency in the allocation of funding and has made a firm pledge to provide local authorities with details of their allocation from central government.
‘However, we remain concerned that without greater accountability of where the money is spent locally, it will be harder to retain funding for these services that provide an essential safety net for some of the most vulnerable people in society.
‘Funding targeted at housing related support makes up a significant chunk of the grant available to deliver local priorities. The amount that gets allocated to spend on housing related support should be clear for all to see and local authorities must give an account for how they spend that money.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (3)
Joe Halewood | 18/01/2010 5:13 pm
The national programme that SP once was is now a local programme. In simple terms if youre vulnerable and dont get a support service blame your local council not central government.
If you a pensioner and your warden is no longer funded, blame your local council
If you experience DV or are homeless or deaf or blind or have mental health issues and no support - blame your local council not central government.
After all central government only promised that "Supporting People WILL provide a SECURE LEGAL AND FINANCIAL framework for vulnerable people" (Response to SP consultation responses1999) - You could try and look this up but the paper has been deleted, is not on the internet, though is presumably in the House of Commons archive.
Perhaps I should place my paper copy of it on ebay....or maybe i'll donate it to the British Museum who can exhibit next to the stuffed dodo!
Aside from this being a green light for local councils to raid budgets for vulnerable people, the (very conservative) official reports state that SP saves the public purse massively for its investment - any government, national or local that seeks to rais its funds will not get any better value for money elsewhere and the ringfence removal is a national disgrace.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michael Patterson | 19/01/2010 10:49 am
The ringfence was never going to be retained. This is something we've been banging on about since March 2005, which was when the (then) ODPM let the cat out of the bag. Supporting People won't be retained either, as many of you will know. The CLG will only continue to give details of their SP allocation until 2011, which is when it will officially cease to exist.
There was never any possibility of its retention as SP funding constitutes one third of Area Based Grant, the "new" funding stream which is intended to fund Local Area Agreement targets in specific terms and, in general terms, the entire new local government framework introduced by central government. The government would never allow that degree of inflexibility over a full third of its revenue pot for local services.
We referred to the CLG report as a missed opportunity in our briefing on the day it came out. It would have been better in my opinion had the sector's representative organisations dropped the unwinnable ringfence argument and concentrated on the need to secure one third of Area Based Grant for preventative and enabling services, the ones that demonstrably save the government money and improve the lives of vulnerable people and the communities within which they live. You know, the ones the sector's always strived to provide.
The removal of the ringfence also means the removal of SP eligibility criteria so preventative and enabling services can be defined in much wider, more diverse terms. Providers will need to develop new service models (Personalisation will demand the same) which meet a wider range of peoples' needs, talk to a wider range of commissioners and understand what their Local Area Agreement prioritises.
It's still possible for providers to make the case for their preventative enabling services. There are economic and social arguments to support them: prevention is always better than cure and it's cheaper. But making that case would have been so much easier had the sector representatives not been allowed by the government to bark up the wrong tree for the last few years.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
B.S. Townroe | 19/01/2010 11:05 am
Blimey, thanks for introducing me to a genuinely new experience - feeling a little sympathy for Government! Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't....
Do councils need to be told not to 'raid' the cash that would otherwise go to support vulnerable households? What about all that stuff talked about local decision-making, accountability, etc.? Or should national government never trust local government in this and all other areas? I thought that was the evil that stalked the land, big government, not the nice, cuddly, friendly local types!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment