New definition for housing related support

The CLG is attempting to change the definition of ‘housing related support’ – the key factor and criteria for Supporting People funding, now and in the future. This is revealed in a letter to all authorities dated 26 February 2009 asking for response by 5 March 2009.


Current definition

‘Support services which are provided to any person for the purpose of developing that person’s capacity to live independently, or sustaining his capacity to do so’

Future definition

‘Support services which are provided to any person for the purpose of developing that person’s capacity to live independently, or sustaining his capacity to do so, but are not subject to registration with the Commission for Social Care Inspection.’

While this seems a well meaning attempt it fails to pick up a few crucial points.

Firstly, much care provision is not funded nationally but prompts registration with CSCI. This is because councils can or will not fund the two lowest levels (of four) of care. Some only fund the highest level (critical) yet most do fund level 2 (substantial). Hence, those vulnerable people deemed as needing level 2 3 or 4 of care may not be funded by any funding stream. In the current definition physical care such as feeding, bathing and toileting (all level 1) is the only matter SP cannot fund. Outside of feeding bathing and toileting, many so-called ‘care’ activities can also be defined as ‘support’ and are funded by SP monies. Yet the proposed new definition dramatically reduces what can be funded and will exacerbate the situation and leave many thousands of vulnerable people without any funding.

Secondly, in conversation with CSCI last week they suggest that the new Care Quality Commission will rule that ‘emotional and psychological support’ will in the future prompt care registration. Would this make every DV refuge needing to register and thus take them out of SP funding? If implemented it would and all SP funded services involves emotional and psychological support.

If this proposed definition goes ahead as is, then many vulnerable people will have no chance of any funding at all unless they improve dramatically and then SP will be available or if they deteriorate dramatically and need critical levels of care.

In summary, why can’t central government do what it is forcing local government to try to do – joint working? It is obvious from the proposed new HRS definition that care and support departments at central government don’t know what the other is doing and need to speak with one another.