Does the government really care?

Because whatever concerns we have - and they are serious - the underlying concept of the new "Supporting People" framework announced in December, is spot on.

The government's stated objectives are:

• sustaining vulnerable people in the community and preventing crises from developing
  
• supporting individuals through crisis
  
• promoting independence
  
• helping vulnerable people establish themselves in the community
  
• supporting people excluded from services for a variety of reasons
  
• services moulded around people rather than vice versa

Who could argue with any of that?

The new regime is intended to fund a range of services currently excluded from housing benefit, such as advocacy and community alarms, and it will be available to a very wide range of 'vulnerable' people.

For example, local authorities will have a statutory responsibility to victims of domestic violence (a key area for Stonham) and an ability to fund support services for them. Direct payment to individuals to purchase their own support will also be possible in some circumstances.

In the government's view, these proposals represent a fundamental shift towards an integrated budget over which a variety of interests have joint control. This should lead to services that meet the actual needs and preferences of individuals, rather than forcing people into one client category tied to a funding stream.

Local authorities will have a statutory responsibility to support vulnerable people in the community. Local authorities, social services, probation and health will all have a formal role in decision-making. In order to claim the full amount of grant, authorities will need to show that these bodies have addressed the whole range of needs and have all agreed how to apply the resources. In addition to an element of grant earmarked to address local needs, there will be an element to address needs across a group of authorities.

The potential benefits of the new regime can be summarised as follows:

• greater transparency and coherence across funding streams
  
• a shift to services designed around the needs of individuals
  
• individuals will no longer have to move into special housing schemes to receive support
  
• support will be available in any tenure and in the family home
  
• rents will no longer have to fund support, making them more affordable and helping people to find work.

That's the praise - now for the problems. One major concern is how the new arrangements will affect client groups such as ex-offenders, single homeless people, young people leaving care or women fleeing domestic violence, who have traditionally been a low priority for local authorities.

The grant must not simply be spent on existing Social Services priorities, because of pressurised local authority budgets.

The Housing Corporation has an honourable history of supporting difficult client groups through Supported Housing Management Grant, in some cases overcoming local nimbyism. If SHMG is to be part of the new pot, we need some absolute safeguards that services for these clients will be maintained.

There are a number of further concerns:

• It is not clear how individuals will access and be assessed for support, who will carry out these assessments and how they will be resourced.
  
• We need to be sure that the new grant and the transitional arrangements will fund all the activities currently undertaken and funded by housing benefit, SHMG, PAGS and various top-up funding streams, when housing benefit is reduced to a 'bricks and mortar' level.

The transition to this new regime must ensure that service users continue to receive the support they need and that valuable projects don't simply collapse. When Community Care was introduced, transitional funding for existing schemes was available, but is not mentioned in the Supporting People framework.

These proposals amount to the most significant change in social policy affecting very vulnerable people since the introduction of Care in the Community, directly affecting the lives of up to 700,000 people. It is crucial that all the lessons learned from the successes and failures of Care in the Community are used in developing the new support framework.

The message we need to send to government is that supporting people in the community is a cost-effective and socially progressive alternative to a range of institutional options - just as Care in the Community is. But also, as with Care in the Community, things can go seriously wrong if the scheme is underfunded and the support needs of some of the most difficult client groups are not adequately met.

Clare Tickell is chief executive of Stonham housing association

Bureaucracy gone mad

Clare Tickell (above) argues that the devil is in the detail of the "Supporting People" consultation paper. I would put it a little differently - the devil and the Christmas fairy are both in the implementation. Which one will emerge triumphant?

The "happy ending" version is that under the new funding system, needs will be assessed equitably, three year rolling grants will be awarded to reputable providers, with no favouritism for local authority projects over independent ones, or council tenants over rough sleepers, and supported housing will become affordable to those able to work. Gone forever will be the days of having to knit together the spaghetti of SHMG, housing benefit, PAGs, etc. Supported and sheltered housing will be a central part of local housing, community care and public health strategies, and there will be enough funding in the system. It sounds like a fairy story, and if it were to come true, we would all indeed live happily ever after.

The alternative scenario is that an inadequate amount of money is transferred into the new specific grant, and once it has been spread thinly across the public, private and independent sectors, severe rationing is needed. Local authorities prioritise their own provision, and community care groups with the greatest needs win out over less popular groups. Spot contracts abound, and a hugely complicated new monitoring system is set up which makes us yearn for the SHMG review. Definitions still bedevil the system, with no clear lines between housing management and intensive housing management, or between general counselling and specific counselling. problem is that either of these scenarios is possible. The consultation paper asks whether we support the principle, but the most sensible answer seems to be "it all depends on how it's done".

We have to start from the premise that all parties are aiming for the "happy ending" version. How far short they fall will depend on factors including government financial priorities, power struggles between central and local government, and the ability of civil servants to solve the perennially intractable problems of definitions of services.

We want to make the new system work: there are three key issues the federation will be fighting.

The first is the removal of Supported Housing Management Grant (SHMG) from the Housing Corporation thereby breaking the link between capital and revenue funding. SHMG has allowed the development of many projects which might not otherwise have been at the top of a local authority's priority list. Nearly 30% of those currently in supported housing are single homeless people in need of support - SHMG fills the gaps between local authority programmes. Projects may be tolerated, even if not welcomed, by local authorities, because they bring their own capital and revenue. The real fear is that when judged alongside schemes for frail elderly council tenants who have lived locally all their lives, itinerant rough sleepers will not be winners.

SHMG should stay with the Housing Corporation. It's a safety net for society's (and local authorities') lower priorities, and it links running costs with capital funding to build the projects.

The proposals aim to put the public, private, and independent sectors on a level playing field, competing with each other on equal terms, depending on their effectiveness in meeting identified support needs.

But how level is level? Welcome the new transparency of costs the system will bring. It makes no sense to be adjusting job descriptions to fit SHMG criteria one day and housing benefit the next. Registered social landlords will be happy to show costs clearly in a standard format, and the services provided for those costs - if other sectors do the same. In the private sector, we need to know what level and quality of service a private landlord provides, how much of the cost goes on providing the service, and how much is profit. The local authority sector can fund many support services through their Housing Revenue Account (HRA). If they are to be able to award themselves the new specific grant, we must get the right amount of money out of the HRA in order to fund this. Otherwise, local authorities will have two sources of funding - their own HRA, and the new specific grant.

Another way of levelling up the playing field would be to have the Housing Corporation, and representatives from the RSL sector, on the new joint commissioning panels.

Finally, and fundamentally, let's look at sheltered housing. The average eligible service charge for lettings in RSL sheltered housing in April to June 1998 was £14.56. Perhaps £5 of this would stay in housing benefit, to cover basic housing management, and £10 transfer to the new specific grant. There are half a million people in sheltered housing, who would all get their service charge reduced by £10 (whether or not they receive housing benefit, because we cannot have differential charges based on housing benefit status). Those not on benefit gain a £10 per week windfall, so this must be recouped somehow through a means-tested charging system. And all sheltered schemes in the country must apply for a new specific grant to make up the shortfall. It is bureaucracy gone mad, and cannot avoid costing more than the current system. The federation will continue to argue strongly that sheltered housing wardens are best funded through housing benefit. The proposals are bold and imaginative, and the vision has much to commend it. But the implementation is everything, and these are key issues which the federation shall fight to ensure the new system works. The consultation period is short, but we will be working on these issues with civil servants from February onwards. The federation and its members need a real voice in planning the world of April 2003 to protect our vulnerable tenants.