Defining Supporting People

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

One of the issues to emerge from the recent round table discussions on lifting the ring fence (see Sitra Bulletin March 2009) was how to define what it is we do, now that it is no longer defined by grant eligibility criteria. This is not just a matter of agreeing a name, nor is it just academic pedantry.

Nigel Hamilton enters the debate.

 

One of the great strengths of Supporting People (SP) is that we have been able to demonstrate exactly what we do for whom, how it meets defined needs and what the outcomes are. This has been possible both locally and nationally. For example, it has been possible for the cost benefits of the national programme to be quantified, in terms of savings elsewhere, at £2.6bn saved for  £1.7bn spent.

With the lifting of the ring fence, housing related support has to compete for resources at a local as well as a national level. It has  therefore become even more important to be able to measure the benefits. But we need to be clear about what is being  measured. With no defined funding stream and no eligibility criteria, can the value of outputs and outcomes be meaningfully  assessed? And can we effectively track how well expenditure on supported housing is holding up around the country?

 

It is in this context that Mark Carroll, the Director of Housing Management and Support at CLG, has written to the Pathfinder  authorities, who piloted life outside the ring fence in 2008/09, asking them for their views on a proposed definition with the  objectives to (in his words):

• Minimise the risk of the scope of services included in National Indicators (<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />NIs) 141 and 142 being inconsistent across  authorities and over time, and therefore jeopardise the consistency and reliability of the data collected.

• Not stifling innovation and good practice by being too prescriptive. The current definition of housing related support in the Grant  Conditions state:

“Support services which are provided to any person for the purpose of developing that person’s capacity to live independently, or sustaining his capacity to do so”.

The proposal is to add a further element as follows:

“Support services which are provided to any person for the purpose of developing that person’s capacity to live independently, or sustaining his capacity to do so, but are not subject to registration with the Commission for Social Care Inspection.” 

 

Concerns about loss of identity

Sitra has been concerned about the implications of the “service formerly known as SP” losing its identity post ring fence, as well  as the problems around monitoring if it is not well defined, so we welcome this effort to reach a generally accepted and workable  nomenclature. We would have preferred a rather wider consultation and hope that this may still happen. There are a lot of people  outside the Pathfinders with a stake in this.

 

In addition to making the NIs consistent, an agreed definition would also help with making the new local and national cost benefits model (see the Sitra Bulletin, December/January) meaningful, as well as helping with Benchmarking and interpreting the  St Andrews outcomes data. The Government’s proposals for Local Spending Reports (currently out for consultation) include  spending on Supporting People as one of the items to be recorded and published. This is to be welcomed but, again, will only be meaningful in helping us track what is happening nationally if everyone is reporting on the same thing.

 

But is this the right  definition? Some may baulk at defining housing related support by what it is not, rather than what it is,  although the CLG point out that this would be in line with not being too prescriptive. Does the distinction with care continue to  serve the sector well, or would it exclude a lot of innovative jointly commissioned services? Is a definition of support based on an administrative arrangement, that is, the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) (as it is currently titled) and its regulatory  remit (which may, of course, change) sufficiently needs led or outcomes focused? With social care in transformation, it might not  be the best place to look for hard and fast boundary markers.

 

Or is a definition doomed to fail as new flexible, innovative and jointly commissioned service models are developed? Should we even be trying to force this new world into an old fashioned box?

 

Contribute to the debate

This is an important discussion and we will be taking it up with the CLG over the coming months. It would be very helpful if members can let us have their views so that we can properly represent you in this debate. Email Nigel Hamilton at nigelh@sitra.org