Plenty of paperwork, but not enough money

I have great admiration for the government's intention to address the question of how to deal with such support in a methodical and tidy way. I think it has approached it well, consulting on everything from policy to administration. But I think ministers have got their sums wrong.

You may be familiar with that delightful piece of paperwork, the SP3. Running to some 40-50 pages, this form is used to inform local authorities about who is providing what types of support service in their area. So far at English Churches Housing Group, we have completed 307 of them. Two authorities, though, have decided not to use the SP3. Their assertion that they know enough about our services did not inspire me with confidence. On the whole, I would rather have spent the time completing the form than spend the time worrying about whether they really know what they are doing.

My concerns are not related to the complex administration arrangements, or the "emerging policy", which is emerging rather too slowly for everyone's comfort. No, it's the money that's really worrying me.

There is no maximum transitional housing benefit (THB) claim and rumours are rife about the size of the claims supporting the most vulnerable clients. There even seems to be an element of competition about who can get the highest THB level approved.

My group has taken the opportunity of the introduction of the new financial regime to ensure that all our schemes individually are self-sufficient, as, in the past, we were able to subsidise schemes from one part of the country by surpluses made elsewhere. As this is no longer the case, we have had to ensure that all schemes now stand up. They do now – but on quite tight financial margins.

The real debate however centres on the question of whether we are here to construct high-quality, person-centred services without financial constraint, or to provide services that promote independence within a fixed budget. Those who justify the highest level of cost as long as it can be justified by the individual clients' needs are not living on the same planet as I am.

I am sure the value of bids for Supporting People grant will be higher than the resources set aside by government. In fact, I have a small bet on it

I am sure the value of bids for Supporting People grant will be higher than the resources set aside by the government. Most services I know of have been rationed and we are just putting our heads in the sand if we think that crunch time for Supporting People grants won't come. Crunch time will come, and I fear it will come too late for us all to be able to sort out just what money is available for which clients.

First, there is the problem that 16% of our schemes are not yet on anyone's schedule despite our best efforts, and I don't think we are unique. But, more importantly, the most recent financing paper emphasises that the only money that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has available is money it has inherited from legacy grants. Does that include all the increased THB claims currently being processed? Now each commissioning body must consult and decide on its own charging policy. But which authority can afford to waive charges if it has to find the money from its own budgets?

I thought the paper had a particularly happy expression in it on this subject: it told all local authorities to engage in "the apparently pointless task" of assessing who might pay what charges, even if they don't actually have to pay them.

The paper states that there will be an advance estimation of the Supporting People grants by December 2002. For this, all authorities have to have all services listed, all contracts valued and all charging income estimated and netted off the proposed grant. And then the OPDM will make the money available. But what if this is not all done by then? And what if the sums add up to more than the chancellor has set aside?