Not good on paper

One of my clients, a small housing association that provides supported housing, recently asked me to produce a “voids” policy. “If you have a void, fill it quickly with the most suitable person,” I replied – but I doubt that response would have gone down well with the local authority, which was also demanding my client provide a detailed abuse policy, a lone worker policy – and a whole host of other policies and other bits of paper.

Although this landlord has provided supported housing for 20 years, with a reasonable degree of success, it faced a funding cut if it didn’t produce all these policies, forms and paperwork.

I am old enough to remember when “rent direct” used to be paid by the Department for Social Security to tenants, reasonably successfully, until someone had the bright idea of transferring the responsibility for payments to local authorities and calling it housing benefit. As we all know, four or five years of chaos ensued, with some authorities falling scandalously behind on payments. Only now has it really been straightened out.

The system of supported housing management grants, paid by the Housing Corporation to registered housing associations, was also reformed because providers of support felt that too much grant was being hived off by associations for administration. The principle behind paying the grants directly to support providers was excellent. But the practice of it leaves much to be desired. Whole systems seem to have been designed to benefit consultants, who can charge up to £600 per day, and training providers.

Meanwhile, Supporting People staff are bogged down with forms to fill in and bits of paper to be produced, leaving them with little time to actually accompany service users to housing benefit offices or organise practical support such as furniture for them. The Supporting People service users are left with little dignity. They are treated like invalids: their problems are discussed and analysed; support plans are agreed and signed; attendance of meetings and key work sessions is forced on them when they could be or should be out looking for work.

People who have been through a difficult time are left without a modicum of dignity. Some groups such as refugees and asylum seekers find the bureaucracy difficult and demeaning. They have to work long hours to pay back agents who brought them over in lorries, so they have little time to spend on receiving the form of support demanded by Supporting People administering authorities. Yet we know that without support they will not be able to cope and their tenancies will fail.

I have no problem with having stringent requirements on something such as health and safety or the standard of homes provided. But do we really need a mass of paperwork to produce them, process them, evaluate them and file them?

In the midst of all these paper requirements, Supporting People has failed to address the key to success of so many supported housing projects, which is the availability of move-on placements. New housing is used for trendier choice-based lettings rather than moving people on who are now ready for independent living.

If the ODPM is looking to make cuts to fit its reduced Supporting People budget, perhaps it should look at creating less paper and focusing more on outcomes. Let that be their resolution for 2005 – reduce bureaucracy and eliminate any piece of paper that is not essential.