How does the government’s supported housing funding plan measure up?

Over the past weeks we have heard views on the short-term accommodation proposals from our members around the country, and there are many questions about how these principles could be met, as well as real concern that these plans put future provision of supported housing at serious risk.

Principle 1: providing sufficient, sustainable funding

There are significant concerns about the long-term security of funding if providers are fully reliant on a locally administered grant to meet their housing costs.

Members also question the safety of a ringfenced grant in today’s financial and political context. The removal of the Supporting People ringfence in 2009 prompted a 45% reduction in spending on housing-related support, according to the National Audit Office.

“Details are vague about how local grants will be sized and allocated.”

Housing-related support funding streams remain under intense pressure, and we are disappointed that this consultation has again missed the opportunity to talk about sustainable funding in the round by only focusing on housing costs.

Details are also vague about how local grants will be sized and allocated, and how the size will reflect year-on-year growth in costs.

Organisations are worried that without a full understanding of the costs of providing supported housing and clear plans to adjust the pot, services could become financially unviable.

Principle 2: responding flexibly to people’s diverse needs and aspirations

There is also an issue with short-term accommodation being defined as services that support people for up to two years.

While services plan to move people on within this period, in reality this is not always practical. Our research shows that 30% of people currently staying in our members’ services are waiting to move on but aren’t able to, due to issues such as lack of housing.

For many providers, two years is an arbitrary timeframe which – if it becomes a hard deadline – could risk people being moved before they are ready or services being penalised for taking a personalised approach to lengths of stay.

There are also currently several non-commissioned services that support individuals with specific needs not being met through other services, or highly specialist services for which there will not be enough demand in one area.

The current proposals are unclear about how these services will be supported in the new locally commissioned system.

Principle 3: encouraging good practice, innovation and development

It is good to see commitments to protect and boost supply, but many members feel the plans do not provide the long-term security they need to develop new services.

While there is certainty of funding for the length of a commissioned contract, the risk remains that services could be decommissioned further down the line, which increases the risk to individuals.

This does not provide assurance for organisations’ boards or potential investors that the costs of developing new or innovative schemes can be recouped.

Principle 4: supporting commissioning of high-quality schemes to meet local needs

We welcome the consultation’s focus on needs assessments and strategic planning, and it was something we called for in our own response last year. It is also positive to see an understanding that there are circumstances in which existing local connection arrangements could be a barrier to people accessing the necessary support and that localities must be able to support people from outside their area where appropriate.

However, a more strategic approach to supported housing cannot be realised without adequate resources, expertise and capacity within local authorities.

Principle 5: developed in partnership with services and residents

One of the biggest questions raised by the proposals is their impact on tenants. With no rent payments underpinning the relationship with their landlord, it is unclear what rights and protections people will have; our panel of experts by experience raised concerns that it might become easier for providers to evict or exclude people from services.

A key part of preparing to move on is managing finances, and the proposed model removes the opportunity for people to learn these skills and demonstrate them to landlords.

“We are dealing with a hugely complex sector, making finding solutions equally complex.”

While the new system does enable people to move into work without impacting on their housing costs, and offers a chance to save up for deposits and furniture when moving on, there are significant issues that still need to be addressed.

I recognise the challenge facing policymakers; we are dealing with a hugely complex sector, making finding solutions equally complex.

However, supported housing provides a lifeline for thousands of vulnerable people, and will play a key role in helping the government to achieve its pledge to eliminate rough sleeping by 2017, and therefore it is imperative that we get it right.

We will continue to work with government and our members to test current proposals and do all we can to secure a sustainable future for these vital services.

Rick Henderson, chief executive, Homeless Link