Report for the NATIONAL HOUSING FEDERATION (NHF) STATUTORY PROTECTION FOR THE FUTURE FUNDING OF SUPPORTED HOUSING. June 2017

Transcription

1 Report for the NATIONAL HOUSING FEDERATION (NHF) STATUTORY PROTECTION FOR THE FUTURE FUNDING OF SUPPORTED HOUSING June 2017 Phil Saunders Homeless Link Associate Contact us Homeless Link, incorporating Sitra Minories House 2-5 Minories London EC3N 1BJ Wendy Green Consultancy Manager

2 CONTENTS PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION 3 2 BRIEF AND METHODOLOGY 3 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4 4 WHAT IS STATUTORY PROTECTION? 4 5 WHAT COULD BE PROTECTED? 4 6 PROS AND CONS OF STATUTORY PROTECTION 3 7 OPTIONS FOR STATUTORY PROTECTION 5 8 SHORT TERM SERVICES 11 9 CONCLUSION 11 APPENDIX 1 - SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE STATUTORY PROTECTIONS 13 2

3 1. INTRODUCTION The government recently consulted on its proposals for the future funding of supported housing The NHF s response to the consultation can be found at: The proposals include the setting up of a ring fenced fund, administered by Local Authorities, to replace Housing Benefit payments over and above Local Housing Allowance levels. In relation to this, as part of the consultation, the DCLG asked whether 'other funding protections for vulnerable groups, beyond the ring-fence, might be needed to provide fair access to funding for all client groups, (including for example the case for any new statutory duties or any other sort of statutory provision)?' DCLG have indicated that they are interested in hearing from the Supported Housing sector on the specific issue of statutory protection, despite the deadline having passed for the consultation as a whole. In light of this, the NHF has commissioned Homeless Link to explore the options around increased statutory protection for supported housing, in conjunction with a range of providers and stakeholders. 2. BRIEF AND METHODOLOGY The NHF was keen to explore what statutory protection might look like and how it might operate. They also wanted to understand the opportunities and threats of different types of statutory protection. In response to this brief, Homeless Link carried out: A desk top study, to consider the range of possible statutory options Interviews with providers, commissioners and other stakeholders, using a semi-structured approach designed to maximise the impact of the respondents contribution Two focus groups (one in Manchester and one in London) using a round table approach in which providers, commissioners and other stakeholders could interact creatively An expert panel meeting, involving expert Homeless Link policy and consultancy associates. A critical friend approach was taken during the project, with one sector expert engaged to support an objective analysis and reflection across the project. The Homeless Link project team reported back regularly to the NHF Project Manager. For the purposes of this paper, the term Supported Housing is used to refer to housing specifically developed or earmarked to accommodate service users from the whole range of vulnerable client groups. As such, it includes housing for Older People, including Sheltered and Extra Care housing. The term Ring Fenced Fund is used in the absence of a working title for the funding arrangements. It should be noted that creation of the Ring Fenced Fund is a transfer of housing funds and the working assumption made during the project was that it should continue to meet housing costs. 3

4 3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The NHF and Homeless link would like to thank all those who contributed to the project, by participating in the interviews, focus groups and information sharing with the project team. 4. WHAT IS STATUTORY PROTECTION? For the purposes of this discussion, the term statutory protection can be taken to include: Primary Legislation (i.e. Acts of Parliament) Secondary Legislation (e.g. determinations made using statutory powers, for example in respect of grant conditions) Statutory Guidance (e.g. guidance issued under the Care Act 2014) It is worth noting that these protections are listed in descending order of strength, in terms of likelihood to change or influence behaviour. Primary legislation is much more challenging to introduce than statutory guidance, with use of secondary legislation sitting somewhere in between. In the rest of this paper, we use the term statutory protection to embrace all of these options. In the discussions informing this paper, we also considered other quasistatutory options such as: Non Statutory Guidance from Statutory Bodies (e.g. The NHS Forward View) Regulation and/or Performance Monitoring by Statutory Bodies (e.g. The Homes and Communities Agency s Regulation of Housing Associations) Good Practice Guidance (e.g. on Client Group Pathways) The above represents a range of options for how statutory protection might be enacted. However, it is just as important to look at what the focus and scope of that protection might be. 5. WHAT COULD BE PROTECTED? Over the course of the project, it became clear that statutory protection could be structured in a number of different ways. It could, for example, be fairly narrow in scope, focussing purely on administration and deployment of the Ring Fenced Fund. Implementation of the Ring Fenced Fund would be a transfer of housing funds. Statutory protection could, therefore, be used to ensure that the fund is used to meet housing costs and does not leak into other areas of expenditure. Statutory protection could also be aimed at ensuring fair access for certain client groups, to the Ring Fenced Fund itself or to the benefits that derive from it. Alternatively, it could be widely drawn, with the intention of establishing a commissioning and funding framework for Supported Housing taken as a whole. Participants in the project discussed all of these possibilities. In the paper below, we discuss how certain kinds of statutory protection, in various legislative domains, may or may not be suitable for some or all of them. 6. PROS AND CONS OF STATUTORY PROTECTION Before looking at the specific options for statutory protection, it is worth considering some of the pros and cons of the approach in general. During the course of the project, we found there was a clear perception that, for some, generalised advantages and disadvantages applied across all legislative areas. 4

5 For example, many participants thought that ring-fencing, in conjunction with mandatory Commissioning Body arrangements, was a preferable solution to further statutory measures. This was because they thought statutory measures inevitably exclude those in need that do not meet statutory criteria. Coupled with diminishing resources, this can lead to fewer and fewer vulnerable people actually getting a service. However, other participants were in favour of statutory protection, because they were not convinced that ring fencing would last and were uneasy about the unpredictability of what life beyond the ring-fence might look like. They tended to regard it as a further lock which would prevent a formerly Ring Fenced Fund from diminishing or leaking into non-housing areas over the longer term. They recognised the cliff edge eligibility problems that statutory protection could cause for some service users, but thought these were preferable to any alternative. They also pointed out that some client groups are already protected under current statute, causing an imbalance in access and funding. To sum up, on the positive side, it was identified that statutory protection could potentially: help to ensure that the purpose of the Ring Fenced Fund, in meeting housing costs in particular (and part funding Supported Housing in general) was clearly understood across all geographical areas and that there were clear local duties to provide it help to promote standardised practice in both strategic and person centred assessment of need, reducing the risk of a post code lottery ensure fairer access for all client groups, as well as fairer access for individual service users within each group protect individual entitlements to funding, in a scenario where resources were being moved out of the benefits system. However, drawbacks included the: serious disincentive to fund services for client groups not covered by statutory duties increased bureaucracy and lack of flexibility that statutory programmes impose on Local Authorities constraints placed on voluntary sector organisations, in terms of their ability to respond to need in an agile and creative fashion tendency for commissioners and stakeholders to treat Ring Fenced amounts as a ceiling for funding, rather than a floor administrative difficulties and costs associated with assessment of individuals statutory entitlement to services. There was, however, considerable agreement across the vast majority of participants on one issue. Almost all participants thought that the Ring Fenced Fund itself needed to be placed on a sound, probably statutory footing. Some form of guidance would be needed to define its purpose in meeting housing costs. But what form should this statute and guidance take? 7. OPTIONS FOR STATUTORY PROTECTION In theory, it would be possible for there to be an entirely new Funding of Supported Housing Act or similar. However, given the multi-disciplinary nature of Supported Housing, project participants were of the view that it is much more likely that any statutory protection would consist of three main elements: Measures designed to set up and ensure the strategic planning and proper distribution of the Ring Fenced Fund Measures, built on or utilising existing legislation, to ensure that that Supported Housing is promoted across the various areas of social policy to which it contributes (Health, Social Care, Housing & Homelessness, Criminal Justice etc.) 5

6 Measures to ensure that the continuing Welfare Benefits system, as amended by the proposed changes, will be fit for purpose as regards the welfare of people living in Supported Housing. In light of this, the remainder of this paper concentrates on existing legislative and policy areas, rather than the possibility of entirely new legislation. Appendix 1 summarises some of the options presented by these areas, in tabular form. SECTION 93 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 Participants noted that this legislation was used to enact implementation of the Supporting People funding framework. It appears to have the potential to: Enable the DCLG to make the Ring Fenced Fund available to Local Authorities as grant Stipulate the amount of Ring Fenced Fund grant that would be passed on from DCLG to Local Authorities Stipulate the types of Local Authorities that could receive grant Set terms and conditions under which these grants are made to different Local Authorities Require compliance with guidance or directions relating to administration, application and monitoring of grants. Almost all participants in the project thought that use of this legislation, or something similar, would provide a sound statutory basis for the Ring Fenced Fund. Specific points made included: It would be important to ensure that, as lead authorities for Housing in two tier areas, District Councils had proper influence over the fund. This could be achieved either by distributing the fund to them or establishing mandatory partnership arrangements. There is also a case for enabling the pooling of funding across local authority areas, such as Combined Authorities and/or with partner organisations e.g. NHS organisations It would enable the nature of the funding that would be received by providers from Local Authorities to be clarified. Commissioning and procurement arrangements may be affected by whether the funding is made available by way of contracts, grants or toppingup Some of the guidance issued under the Supporting People programme was, with the benefit of hindsight, overly bureaucratic for both providers and commissioners. It would be important to learn from this when issuing statutory guidance There may be a case for a list of eligible activities on which Ring Fenced Fund could be spent. This would help to ensure that these housing funds do not leak into other areas of public expenditure. Some Local Authority participants were concerned that any statutory guidance should not be too prescriptive, either in terms of how the fund should be spent or on what. However, many recognised the need for some standardisation in how the Ring Fenced Fund should be deployed. The aim should be to achieve the right balance. For some authorities, the Ring Fenced Fund will be relatively small compared with their overall spending on supported housing. In other areas, the Ring Fenced Fund will be a significant resource. There was some general consensus that there should be a duty to assess the need for Supported Housing locally and produce a strategy setting out how that need will be met, subject to the resources available to the Local Authority and its partners. Supported Housing requires multiple sources of funding, so it would be important to assess how housing money from the Ring Fenced Fund could be deployed in harmony with other sources of housing, care and support funding, perhaps in the context of mandatory partnership arrangements. 6

7 Supported Housing strategies would need collaborative, multi-agency oversight. A wide range of stakeholders would need to be involved in planning, commissioning and funding. Joint approaches would not just involve Local Authority housing departments. Adult and Young Peoples Social Care, Health and Criminal Justice agencies would need to be included. CARE ACT 2014 There was much debate amongst project participants as to the current and potential relevance of the Care Act 2014 and the Statutory Guidance issued under its provisions. The two broad positions taken can be characterised thus: in a Supported Housing context, the Care Act is only relevant to vulnerable adults and young people. Active older people, people who have housing problems and individuals who happen to have offended can hardly be classed as vulnerable the Care Act is about support as well as care. Indeed, the statutory guidance currently promotes accommodation options and housing related support but only for certain groups. This is because the duty to assess the needs of ill or impaired people is narrowly interpreted by Local Authorities. If this interpretation was to change, the Care Act could be used to promote Supported Housing for all vulnerable groups In interpreting the potential scope of the Care Act, participants referred to definitions used in other legislative areas, such as those defining welfare services which promote the physical or mental welfare of elderly, sick, distressed or disabled persons. The term distressed is often taken to include those who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness due to their background or vulnerabilities. Wider interpretations of terms such as ill or impaired can be promoted through statutory guidance (such as Circulars to Administering Authorities) This would chime with the view, emerging in some quarters, that rough sleepers and those with multiple needs ought anyway to be included within the existing definition It was noted that the scope of the Act and guidance requires Adult Social Services to prevent the need for care services and enable independence. The statutory guidance could strengthen these aspects in relation to supported housing, without the legal scope of the Act itself being widened. Some Local Authority participants were, however, sceptical about the benefits of invoking the Care Act. There was a view that it would make assessment of need for and entitlement to Supported Housing complex and conflicted - and that the assessment process could quickly become a gatekeeping approach. Although many Supported Housing residents might well be eligible under Care Act criteria, the reality was that, for many, homelessness prevention is the real driving force behind the provision of their accommodation. Notwithstanding the above, there was some consensus that there was a need to co-ordinate the commissioning and funding of the kinds of Supported Housing which are promoted by the Care Act with provision developed under other legislation. After all, all accommodation options short of Care Homes require housing to be made available. Many top tier Local Authorities develop Accommodation Strategies for people with mental ill health or learning disabilities. These provide a good template joining up District Level housing strategies with Care Act priorities. It would be relatively straightforward to extend this approach to link up with any newly required Supported Housing Strategy. Other parallels can be identified when looking at duties around preventing, reducing or delaying needs Prevention is a concept that runs across social policy areas, including homelessness and crime as well as health and social care. The contribution of Supported Housing to prevention in all these areas is well understood. Many participants thought, 7

8 therefore, that a duty (expressed in statutory guidance) to develop a Supported Housing Strategy embracing all client groups (not just those covered by the Care Act) would be an effective solution. HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE ACT 2012 The Health and Social Care Act provides a framework for partnership working that might have some potential to be utilised or paralleled in the promotion and protection of Supported Housing. Project participants talked positively about the possibility of: Integrating the planning and commissioning of Supported Housing provision into the work of statutory Health and Well Being boards Integrating the task of identifying local need for Supported Housing into the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) process Views varied as to the feasibility of integrating Supported Housing as a whole into these frameworks. In a sense, the argument echoed the discussions about the Care Act. Many participants thought that it would be difficult to get Health and Well Being Boards (HWBBs) to look beyond the client groups they currently focus on. They thought it unlikely that JSNAs could include a sufficiently detailed Supported Housing strategy. However, it was also noted that HWBBs are not restricted in the client groups they consider and most take a wide well-being approach often led by Directors of Public Health (statutory members of the Board) who take a population wide view and a wider determinants approach and would be keen to take a strategic interest in supported housing in their area. Furthermore, some participants took the view that JSNAs provide much of the evidence for the content of strategies. They have the potential to help ensure that Supported Housing strategies are robust, even if they do not include the actual strategies themselves. Most participants agreed that, if statutory guidance were to promote Commissioning Body arrangements broadly similar to those that were introduced to oversee Supporting People, then HWBB members would be key stakeholders. A forum, formally linked to the HWBB that combined these stakeholders with representatives of the housing, homelessness and criminal justice sectors could be very powerful. It could oversee both the strategy for the Ring Fenced Fund and influence the broader agenda of the HWBB and its constituent organisations. Participants also discussed the possibility of increasing the profile of Supported Housing in NHS Sustainable Transformation Plans (STPs) It was noted that STPs have a clear focus on prevention of hospital admissions and provision of treatment at home. There is, therefore a housing strand to their work and some recognition that housing forms part of the whole system that needs to be transformed. Some Health Care sectors covered by STPs, such as Mental Health and Learning Disability, have a clear understanding of the role of Supported Housing. However, the general view was that STPs are too early in their development at this stage to provide a framework of statutory protection for Supported Housing as a whole. HOMELESSNESS REDUCTION ACT 2017 Participants dealing with homeless client groups referenced this legislation, which has just recently become law. Some were of the view that, if possible, clauses in the legislation should be harmonised with the Care Act, in order to facilitate a more joined up approach. Thus, there could be provisions in both pieces of legislation that could underpin proper administration of the Ring Fenced Fund and help to promote Supported Housing generally. However, others saw current, pre-homelessness Reduction Act 2017 duties and policies around homelessness prevention as sufficient to ensure proper provision of Supported 8

9 Housing. In their view, Supported Housing aimed at preventing homelessness can embrace groups beyond those to whom the Local Authority has a statutory duty. These include: Single homeless people (who are not statutorily homeless ) Substance mis-users Ex-offenders and People with mental health problems (who are not part of a specific Health and Social Services mental health pathway) This was because issues such as poor mental health, substance mis-use problems and a history of offending were prevalent among the homeless clients they accommodated. Links were built with agencies dealing with the needs of clients as a matter of good practice and operational necessity. They saw no need for further statutory protection to enable this approach, as good Local Authorities will be doing it anyway. However, they thought the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 might further re-enforce good practice, for example amongst Local Authorities who do not give homelessness prevention such a high priority. Furthermore, the Act includes a new duty on public services to notify a local authority if they come into contact with someone they think may be homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. This might help to improve good practice across Local Authorities. Guidance (statutory or non-statutory) would probably be needed to maximise the impact of the new duty. For example, offenders are often referred to Local Authority Homelessness Departments already, but sometimes not treated as a high priority. This further exemplifies the need for the role of Districts Councils to be robust within any new system. OTHER POLICY AREAS Social Housing There were a number of other policy areas that were seen as relevant by at least some participants. These included Funding and Regulation of Social Housing, where it might be possible to link the Ring Fenced Fund to existing and new Supported Housing schemes run by Registered Providers. This would enable Registered Providers to be confident that newly developed schemes are financially viable over the long term. Some form of protection for other housing suitable for people with support needs might also be desirable. As well as suitable social housing, this could also include accommodation currently classified as exempt or specified for Housing Benefit purposes. It was noted that some Local Authorities have made progress in bringing exempt and specified accommodation under the strategic umbrella. Criminal Justice In relation to ex-offenders, participants mentioned: Prison and Courts Bill (NB the status of the Bill is currently unclear in light of the June 2017 general election) - This might help to regularise arrangements for provision of housing (with support if needed) for some offenders, under new powers given to Prison Governors Transforming Rehabilitation this initiative might provide scope to for ensuring positive accommodation outcomes for people in contact with the Criminal Justice System. It was recognised that Supported Housing was not a central feature of either of these initiatives. However, some Supported Housing content in either legislation or guidance would at least nudge those responsible for the Ring Fenced Fund in the direction of ensuring that 9

10 this client group features in their planning and help to ensure that offenders are given an appropriate degree of priority. Substance Mis-use Substance mis-users were identified as a classic example of a client group that was often classed as undeserving or unpopular in terms of Supported Housing provision. Service users from this group tend to present via health, homelessness and criminal justice pathways and often fall between stools. Many LAs argue that there is insufficient need for specialist services in their area. Additionally, many substance mis-users cross LA boundaries, to access treatment or to distance themselves from their substance mis-using milieu. These are long standing problems. There was, however, a view that any statutory protection of funding for Supported Housing could help to ensure that the needs of substance mis-users are considered, at both the strategic and individual levels. Enablement of some degree of multi authority planning would be desirable, including an ability to pool finding on a regional or sub-regional basis. Housing for Older People As regards Older People, there was a general view that services for this client group should be outside of the Ring Fenced Fund arrangements. Instead, Housing/ Council Tax Benefits and Universal Credit Rules could be used to implement a LHA+ solution for Older People s (65+) Housing (Sheltered and/or Extra Care) The LHA+ solution was seen as particularly suitable for sheltered housing because: Although the number of tenants living in sheltered housing is relatively large, the amount of any Ring Fenced Fund per capita will in almost all cases be small. It does not make sense for a large number of relatively small individual benefit entitlements to be transferred to a commissioning and contracting environment The small amounts over and above LHA levels paid by residents are clearly related to provision of additional housing provision. In Supported Housing taken as a whole, there are boundary issues between housing, support and care with much larger per capita sums involved. This is not the case in sheltered housing There are many more residents in sheltered housing who are not eligible for Housing Benefit. Assessing their eligibility for the Ring Fenced Fund would be unnecessarily time consuming. However, payment of topping up funding regardless of means would represent poor value for money. Alternatives such as differential rents for self-funders or collection of small non-rent sums of money also seem potentially unfair or inefficient There was some discussion about the residual benefit payment functions that would be retained by Unitary and District councils after full implementation of Universal Credit. These residual functions will be in place until There was a view that this would enable funding for Housing for Older People to sit outside of the Ring Fenced Fund arrangements, whilst issues around Pensions Credit are resolved. With regards to the longer term, there was a view that LHA+ for Older People s Housing could be built into the Pension Credit system. There would be a clear opportunity to passport individuals receiving pension credits to LHA+ entitlement. This could sit alongside a robust definition of the kinds of housing types deemed to be eligible. Most participants thought Sheltered Housing could and should be defined as eligible for LHA+. Views varied as to whether Extra Care Housing should be included in any LHA+ arrangement. 10

11 Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) A DHP is an extra payment to help people who claim Housing Benefit and are struggling to pay the rent. A Local Authority may award a DHP if, for example, a claimant is affected by the bedroom tax or the benefits cap. DHPs can also be awarded if a claimant receives Universal Credit payments that include help with the rent. Some participants were of the view that a DHP-style topping-up arrangement could be a useful model for the Ring Fenced Fund. It could help to ensure that both the housing focus and the individual entitlement origins of the fund are maintained. The administrative arrangements currently in place for DHP could be utilised, albeit with greater recognition that, in Supported Housing, awards would need to be in perpetuity - and that almost all claimants would need topping-up funding above LHA levels. However, it should be borne in mind that the time limited, discretionary nature of these payments does not provide individual recipients with much financial certainty over the medium to long terms. This uncertainty also provides Housing Associations little confidence about the ability of tenants to pay their rent in full over the course of their tenancy. Thus, it can undermine Housing Associations ability to develop new and invest in existing supported housing, in turn leading to under supply. 8. SHORT TERM SERVICES Some participants argued that short term services should receive protection by being left on the Housing Benefit system. As noted above, Unitary and District councils are likely to maintain the residual benefit payment functions after full implementation of Universal Credit. These are likely to be in place until So, there was a view that this administrative capacity could be utilised. The main reasoning behind this position tended to be a view that Universal Credit lead in times are far too slow in relation to short lengths of stay in, for example, hostels for the homeless. Many tenants would be long gone (or about to move-on) before any Universal Credit was paid. This would undermine cash flow in hostels. It would also lead to unsustainable levels of arrears and bad debts. A more radical solution identified was the idea of taking short term services out of the housing model of provision entirely. This would mean services were fully funded by grants or contracts, with no rent being payable. It was recognised, however, that this model would need to be developed and evaluated in detail. There may, for instance, be legal and financial problems around re-designating publically funded housing schemes as an entirely different kind of premises. Individuals entitlement to housing related benefits would also be undermined. 9. CONCLUSION This study involved a wide range of practitioners and stakeholders. Views varied somewhat as to the nature, extent and desirability of statutory protection, for the Ring Fenced Fund itself and Supported Housing in general. However, there was a high degree of consensus over some areas. In general, participants saw the importance of: Proper statutory enactment and distribution of the Ring Fenced Fund, using powers such as Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2000, or similar. This would ensure that the fund would be spent on housing activities Appropriately detailed, but not overly prescriptive, statutory guidance, again using Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2000, or similar. The art here would be to make the guidance less hands on than the Supporting People guidance issued in the run up to 11

12 2003, but not so loose as to result in widely differing practice across each Local Authority area Statutory guidance (or a similar requirement) that includes a duty to produce a Supported Housing Strategy in each Local Authority area, involving relevant partners as appropriate Utilisation of other relevant legislation to support and enable the above. This could be achieved mainly through careful cross referencing and joining up different strands that affect the funding of Supported Housing Re-enforcing existing good practice and developing measures aimed at nudging commissioners to appropriately prioritise groups like offenders and substance misusers Developing separate arrangements for Sheltered Housing. During the course of the project, the National Housing Federation, as project sponsor, also developed a number of its own recommendations. These are set out below. Recommendations from the National Housing Federation This discussion about the need for new (or enhanced existing) statutory protection for people who live in supported housing throws light on the complexity of the task and the level of risk involved in reforming this area of welfare spending. At present, service users have a legal entitlement to benefit, to cover the costs of their hostel place, refuge space or specially adapted home. So, if it is to work effectively, the new system should be able to: Give tenants confidence that they can afford to live in supported housing, if needs be Give housing providers confidence around long term funding, so that they can invest in and build new homes Minimise the cost and burden of administration Secure services across the whole country The NHF believes that these objectives are best met through continuing to pay the majority of funding through the benefits system. This would minimise the need to introduce new statutory protections in this area. This study found little support for the new local system and limited confidence in the ability of statutory protections to replace the security of the existing framework. In the NHF s view, any money devolved to local authorities should come with: Statutory guidance governing the detail A strong ring fence, ensuring that the funding is spent on housing activities Clearly stated requirements around assessment of need, planning and partnership arrangements Furthermore, detailed consultation is needed before the structures are finalised. This will take time and consideration should be given to pushing back the timetable for reform to allow local authorities to prepare. This would also allow for piloting and testing. 12

13 APPENDIX 1 - SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE STATUTORY PROTECTIONS SECTION 93 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 POSSIBLE PROTECTION PROS/OPPORTUNITIES CONS/RISKS Stipulate amount of Grant from CLG to LA Stipulate type of LA to receive grant Issue determinations, guidance and directions - may be different for different types of local authorities Set terms and conditions of grant Require compliance with guidance or directions relating to administration and application of grants Establishes ring fenced funds in LAs Government and LAs can be held to account regarding levels of funding Allows for growth element year on year Could be District or Top-Tier LAs as appropriate Establishes the legal nature, status and purpose of the ring fenced fund Could establish the status of LA funding of providers contracts, grants or topping-up? Could establish the status of the activities funded Housing Services? Welfare Services? A detailed list of eligible activities could be produced Allows for a standardised methodology for deployment of the funds to be established Allows for administering authority arrangements Could stipulate commissioning and partnership arrangements - a national statement of expectations or national commissioning framework within which local areas tailor their funding Could require funds to be spent in accordance with a needs based strategy Could promote am outcomes focus helping to demonstrate value of Supported Housing Could stipulate transitional arrangements, including protection for existing tenants Could stipulate pass-porting arrangements (HB, UC, SP, SC etc.) Will the amounts granted be correct? Will this be considered a ceiling on expenditure, rather than a floor? What happens post ring fence? Could regional authorities (GLA, GMA etc.) receive grant? Purpose could be drawn too tightly (leading to eligibility problems) Purpose could be drawn too widely (undermining the ring fence) Will the funding be distinct from Supporting People? Will EU-type procurement rules apply? VAT issues if welfare services definition not maintained. Could be seen as overly prescriptive by LAs Could be overly bureaucratic Could be disproportionate to the size of the fund How will CLG ensure compliance? 13

14 CARE ACT 2014 POSSIBLE PROTECTION PROS/OPPORTUNITIES CONS/RISKS Issue Statutory Guidance Duty to assess care and support needs if services users are ill or impaired Duty to fund Care Homes and Independent living Duties around preventing, reducing or delaying needs Allows for comprehensive guidance on duties to provide care and support for vulnerable groups Protects fair access post ring fence? Support potentially includes accommodation, housing services and housing related support (HRS) Illness and impairment can be widely interpreted Alternatively, the scope of the guidance could be made more explicit. E.g. Welfare Services are defined as: the provision of care, treatment or instruction designed to promote the physical or mental welfare of elderly, sick, distressed or disabled persons In this context the term distressed is often taken to include homeless people, those at risk of homelessness, victims of DV, those with a background of offending etc. The act clearly embraces provision of accommodation as well as support for eligible individuals. The trend in guidance is towards independent living, which is compatible with the provision of Supported Housing. Clearly compatible with the provision of Supported Housing a means of preventing adverse events and escalating levels of need. Guidance could provide methodologies for quantifying the benefits of prevention Will the guidance carry sufficient weight? Does use of this legislation dilute the housing (as opposed to care or support) objectives of the Ring Fenced Fund? To date, the term support has normally embraced only housing and HRS for certain groups e.g. people with learning disabilities To date, this has been interpreted narrowly. Even illnesses such as drug addiction are not always addressed Would there be sufficient funding to resource these wider duties? Would duties to house pull resources away from preventative services? Would widening of the scope be a sledgehammer to crack a nut Would commissioners and providers really want care and support assessments to have to be carried out in all cases? There may be more cliff edge problems with eligibility for some groups. There may be more means testing for some groups. There may be more means testing for some groups. Would sheltered housing class as independent living? The benefits of prevention of adverse events such as homelessness and offending (together with the need for expensive services to deal with the consequences) would need to be widely understood and accepted. 14

15 Duty to developing a local approach to preventative support Duties around market shaping and commissioning of adult care and support Social Care Green Paper Guidance could embrace a requirement to produce and implement a needs based Supported Housing Strategy Guidance could cover planning, commissioning and partnership and monitoring arrangements Guidance could embrace a wide range of partners Could link up planning and commissioning of Supported Housing and Care/Support (including HRS) Chance to link developments in Health & Social Care to changes in the Homelessness, Criminal Justice and Supported Housing regimes. Chance to interface with the Personal Budgets agenda. Would supported housing be only a footnote to a wider strategy? Would entail significant cultural change to embrace Social Landlords as providers Is this green paper mainly about the future funding of social care? HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE ACT 2012 POSSIBLE PROTECTION PROS/OPPORTUNITIES CONS/RISKS Integrate Supported Housing into Health and Well Being boards - statutory bodies Integrate Supported Housing into Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) NHS Forward View Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs) The aim of the Health and Well Being boards is to improve integration between practitioners in local health care, social care, public health and related public services. They provide an existing infrastructure for planning and commissioning JSNAs and Joint Health and Well Being strategies may provide a vehicle for the development of Supported Housing Strategies. Already influence County/Top Tier accommodation strategies, albeit for statutory client groups Focus on prevention, reducing Hospital admissions and providing more care at home could help to promote investment in Supported Housing. Powerful agenda could embedding Supported Housing offer protection beyond the ring fence? Supported Housing and HRS possibly need something more akin to the Supporting People Commissioning Body approach. Supported Housing and HRS possibly need something more akin to the Supporting People Five Year Strategy approach Housing still too remote from these initiatives? 15

16 HOMELESSNESS REDUCTION ACT 2017 POSSIBLE PROTECTION PROS/OPPORTUNITIES CONS/RISKS Amendments to the new Act to link it up with the Care Act 2014 and other relevant legislation. References the Ring Fenced Fund (and possibly other sources of funding) to be included. Issue Statutory Guidance Act includes a new duty to prevent homelessness for all eligible applicants threatened with homelessness Act includes a new duty to relieve homelessness for all eligible homeless applicants New/clarified guidance under the Care Act 2014 and the provisions of the Act could be harmonised. Avoids the need for major amendments to the Act. Duties around the prevention of homelessness have led some local authorities to commission significant Supported Housing programmes. The new act could re-enforce the need for such programmes. The new duty requires local housing authorities to take steps for 56 days to relieve homelessness by helping any eligible homeless applicant to secure accommodation. The Act is unlikely to be amended now These new duties need to be underpinned by a renewed, crossdepartmental Government strategy and policies to ensure suitable accommodation is available in areas where it is needed and ensure councils have the resources required to respond effectively. Can statutory guidance be issued under the terms of the Act? If not, non-statutory guidance may be the only option. Is the new duty sufficiently compelling? Will good practice spread across the country? Is the new duty sufficiently compelling? A draft requirement for local authorities to provide 56- days emergency accommodation for homeless people and rough sleepers with no safe place to stay has already been removed from the Act. The resources that would have been required to meet such a requirement will not be made available to LAs. Act includes a new duty on public services to notify a local authority if they come into contact with someone they think may be homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Could improve links between health/social care agencies and LA homelessness functions. Could help offenders? Not sufficient in and of itself to provide much protection for Supported Housing. LAs only sometimes recognise offenders as a priority. 16

17 OTHER POLICY AREAS POSSIBLE PROTECTION PROS/OPPORTUNITIES CONS/RISKS Funding and Regulation of Social Housing Housing and Council Tax Benefits Universal Credit Rules Prison and Courts Bill Integrate Supported Housing into the Transforming Rehabilitation programme Link Ring Fenced Fund to Existing and New Supported Housing schemes protects portfolio of stock and future growth Identify a % of the HCA as available for locally commissioned Supported Housing LHA+ for Older People s (65+) Housing Utilise District/Unitary benefits administration function to deal with short term and/or sheltered housing funding separately Migrate administration of LHA+ to DWP Administration of DHP may provide a model for deployment of the Ring Fenced Fund Gives governors more autonomy and accountability that will include greater control over areas such as such as releasing prisoners on temporary licence to pursue purposeful activities in work or education. This might help to regularise arrangements for provision of housing for some offenders Scope to support positive accommodation outcomes for people in contact with the Criminal Justice System. Ministry of Justice (MoJ) could develop a cross-departmental accommodation strategy. DCLG could develop guidance and training, in partnership with the MoJ. DCLG, in partnership with other government departments, could clearly define vulnerable groups to include people with a conviction. Only works for Registered Provider schemes Does this begin to undermine the whole policy? Needs water tight definitions of OP housing Function expires 2020/2022? Offenders released on licence currently get probation officer help to find accommodation, as long as they have spent a continuous period of at least twelve months in custody. Will this Act really help to improve practice in this area? Prisoners released (either on licence or not) are not always given priority by LAs under homelessness legislation, despite help from CRCs. Uncertainty around the statutory means for promoting these initiatives. Possible bolt on to Homelessness Act and/or Prison and Courts Act but is this really feasible? Needs links to Care Act re: definition of vulnerable groups. 17

18 18

19 Homeless Link Homeless Link and Sitra merged in We are a membership organisation with some 800 members. Between us we have operated across the homelessness, housing, support and health & social care sectors for over 30 years. The merger creates an exciting opportunity for both organisations to work together even more closely to benefit members, customers, and partners and to ensure a stronger voice for our sectors. We offer training, consultancy and advice, lead on policy development and play a key representative role as the voice of the sectors in which we operate, contributing to emerging policy and promoting best practice. We now operate as Homeless Link, with a specialist supported housing arm - the Supported Housing Alliance leading on all aspects of housing, care and support. Through our work we represent organisations that provide a range of services for people who have experienced homelessness, and those who have additional support needs, including advice services, day centres, providers of emergency and short term housing, providers of housing with support or care and outreach services. Through every aspect of our work we work towards our vision of a country where everyone has a place they can call home and the support they need to maintain that home. In close collaboration with our members, with people who have experienced homelessness and with national and local government, we aim to change the policies that impact on the lives of people who are homeless and to improve the services that support them We have a strong consultancy service for members, providing support to organisations from the largest to the smallest and across the spectrum of their activities from the operational - such as policies and procedures and rent setting and service review through to the strategic commissioning, research and evaluation, strategy development, business planning, rent setting, restructure and workforce development. As well as our active consultancy work, we are a leading training provider delivering both in-house and public courses nationwide and to a variety of customers including local authorities, large registered housing providers, third sector and charitable organisations and service user groups, across homelessness, housing, support, health & social care and criminal justice services. We are recognised and consulted by Government departments and other bodies, including the Department of Communities & Local Government (DCLG), the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), Department of Health (DH) and the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), as representatives of the sector. The linking of our policy & representative role with our support for specific organisations makes for a strong combination. It means that our work on good practice and policy and procedural development draws on the strength of our large membership base and on our role in discussing and developing policy to respond to merging issues at a national Like us on Facebook: Homeless Link, Minories House, 2-5 Minories, Aldgate, London, EC3N 1BJ Tel: ; Homeless Link is a Charity no and Company Limited by Guarantee no