Supporting People changes

1
Supporting People changes

• Presentation based on government proposals for
  the future direction of the programme from April
  2006

2
Source documents

• Creating Sustainable Communities Supporting
  Independence Consultation on a Strategy for the
  SP Programme Nov 2005
• Supporting People Distribution Formula
  Technical Consultation Paper
• Draft Grant Conditions and Directions 2006-07
• Deadline for comments 28th February 2006

3
Reason for changes

• Last 3 years transitional period bedding down a
  new service area
• SP Programme seen as a success
• An essential part of the govts drive to tackle
  disadvantage, reduce social exclusion and create
  sustainable communities
• Reducing bureaucracy and integrating SP

4
Overall tone

• are expected
• should be keen
• would encourage
• need to
• may want to consider

5
Key changes

• Dont have to have a Commissioning Body
• No requirement to do service reviews can have
  our own contract management framework
• Fewer AA Quarterly milestones but quarterly SPLS
  returns continue

6
Key changes (2)

• End of designated services
• Leaseholders no blanket bans for funding
• Local connection policies not allowed for short
  term services
• Considering extending eligibility for handyperson
  services.

7
Key changes (3)

• More focus on outcomes and PIs targets
  introduced. Not required to do staffing PI but
  may choose to continue
• Tracking outcomes for service users
• Client Record Form changes

8
Key changes (3)

• Improvements to the way SP website and Directory
  work
• Ways of linking/incorporating SP directory
  to/with other service areas
• Online system to input standard details on
  individuals

9
Funding

• 2 year allocation 06/07 confirmed and 07/08
  indicative
• Distribution Formula consultation want to use
  for 07/08 awards of SP services grant
• Awaiting govt decision on national budget for
  Admin Grants for 07/08

10
Funding (2)

• Should SP funding be split up or kept as it is?
• Should SP services have their own admin
  framework?
• Encouragement of joint commissioning and joint
  contracts
• Individual budgets for older people in pilot areas

11
Contract management

• Transitional protection continues until
  completion of first reviews.
• Must continue to ensure services are
• Strategically relevant
• Value for money
• Of good quality
• Meeting local needs and priorities
• Must use QAF (annually) and PIs (quarterly) and
  CRF

12
Contracts continued

• Must use SP-accredited providers
• Can replace block subsidy contracts with other
  forms of contract but mustnt charge those on
  any HB or in short term services
• Advised to use 3-5 year contracts but recognise
  budgetary pressures may not allow for this always

13
Performance Indicators and Targets

• List of Best Value PIs and PAF (SS) Indicators
  which will be used and reported on by authorities
  
• (Sch 2 in Direction and Grant Conditions).
• Not clear at this stage how these will be
  collected and what impact on providers returns to
  AA

14
Splitting up the funding

• 3 groupings of the 21 identified client groups
• 3 different approaches for each
• People in receipt of care and support
• People living independently with support
• People experiencing or at risk of social exclusion

15
People in receipt of care and support

• E.g.
• Frail older people
• People with dementia
• People with severe learning disabilities
• People in a chronic phase of HIV/AIDS
• People with severe mental health conditions
• People recovering from drug misuse

16
People in Receipt of Care and Support

• Want to improve how services commissioned and
  provide an integrated package
• Same provider for both care and support?
• Same contract and simplified contract management
  arrangements
• Single assessment process to include SP type
  services?
• Individual budgets to service users?

17
PROS and CONS

• PROS
• Less bureaucratic for providers and authorities
• Seamless service to end user
• Users have same rights as under Care framework
  direct payments

• CONS
• No stat duty to provide SP as opposed to care and
  health
• Funding could be diverted to high needs and where
  stat duty to provide a service
• Impact of individual budgets and block contracts

18
People living independently with support

• Eg
• Older people
• People with moderate learning or physical
  disabilities
• People in a managed phase of HIV/AIDS
• People with moderate health conditions
• Likely to be people just receiving an SP service
  and poss SP only likely lead

19
People living independently with support

• Suggestions extend choice
• Ensure availability of floating as well as
  accommodation-based services.
• Commissioners need to ensure correct supply
  available
• Individuals could use individual budgets to
  purchase

20
PROS/CONS

• PROS
• Service users have same rights as those receiving
  care ind budgets to spend on their own service

• CONS
• Choice depends on commissioning ability is this
  weakened if funding split and individuals have
  their own funding?
• Return to THB days did they have more choice
  then?

21
People experiencing or at risk of social exclusion

• Eg
• Homeless individuals or families
• Women fleeing domestic violence
• Ex offenders inc young offenders
• Young people leaving care
• Young people at risk
• Teenage parents
• People with substance misuse
• Gypsies and travellers
• Refugees

22
Suggestions

• Should different client leads take strategic lead
  in commissioning and integrating relevant
  services?
• Homelessness Teams
• Drug Action Teams
• Teenage Pregnancy Co-ordinators
• Childrens Trusts
• More inter-agency and cross authority joint
  commissioning and planning

23
PROS/CONS

• Money can be combined more readily
• Ensures strategic leads have say in commissioning
  decisions

• Less chance of cross subsidy between client
  groups
• Will housing related support be diluted in favour
  of other preventative work?
• Return to pre SP will consistency between
  groups be lost?

24
Overall suggestions

• Pay SP to separate depts/leads and abolish ring
  fence for SP
• or
• Integrate SP funding into local revenue support
  grant flexibility of use tied to Local Area
  Agreement
• or
• mix and match for the 3 different groups

25
Issues with different approaches

• Taking different approaches for different groups
  might make it more difficult for providers and
  authorities to ensure effective delivery
• SP has provided a focus for housing-related
  support services
• People move between groups single funding
  stream better?
• Carving up funding keeps current profile of spend
  and decreasing commissioning ability
• Could create a 3 tier system of provision,
  standards and increase bureaucracy (more officers
  involved in contracts, monitoring etc)

26
Distribution Formula Dangers

• Complex could ignore
• South East Region one of worst hit in country
• Pace of change up for discussion
• Good quality services could close over short
  period of time
• Why have there been historical patterns of
  supply?

27
Highest losers in South East are

• West Berks (57) 5.6m 05/06 allocation
  reduced by 3.2m
• Oxfordshire (50) 19.7m 05/06 allocation
  reduced by 9.9 m
• Isle of Wight (36) 6.6m 05/06 allocation
  reduced by 2.3m
• Slough (35) 4.4m 05/06 allocation reduced
  by 1.5m
• Reading (32) 5.0 m 05/06 allocation reduced
  by 1.6m
•  

28
Implications

• These authorities are among the highest losers
  nationally.  Under illustration Reading falls
  into the highest band reduction greater than
  30 - facing a maximum cut of 5 per annum.