ALG London SP Strategy St Mungos response

About St. Mungos

St Mungo's is a charitable Housing Association providing services for people who are
homeless and vulnerable. We provide accommodation across London in 70 different
supported housing schemes, including hostels, care homes and semi-independent housing.
We are also a major provider of floating support services, and have a number of specialist
teams providing support, training and advice services in the fields of health, substance use,
criminal justice and community safety.

We also run London's largest directly delivered programme of Work and Learning Services
giving over 2000 homeless people a year a chance to improve their lives through 12 activity,
training and employment projects.

SP funding makes up 40% of our income, and many of our schemes meet the needs of cross-
authority client groups. We therefore welcome the opportunity to comment on the draft
London Supporting People Strategy. In our response, we have focussed on areas in which we
have particular experience and expertise.

In general, we welcome the attempt to provide a coordinated approach to the commissioning

and management of SP services in London. Whilst in theory we also welcome the linkage
between the SP strategy and the ALG grants programme, we are withholding judgement at
the moment. Early indications suggest that the grants programme will be used to buy off
political pressure rather than address need strategically in London.

Overall, though, we believe that the draft strategy falls far short of its stated aim of providing a
vision for the programme as a whole in the capital.

Key problems we have with it are:

- the ALG-commissioned needs analysis on which priorities are identified is

inadequate:

- commitments made are not backed up clearly by the analysis, are vague, or fall short
of giving clear direction

- there is a confusion between cross-authority and strategic

- lack of recognition of the fundamental weaknesses in the current programme

- failure to address and define the boundary between SP and social care

Regarding the questions asked:

1. The Strategy identifies joint commissioning, remodelling of services, building

choice and capacity as the key issues for London are these the right
priorities?

Joint commissioning is obviously crucial to procuring cross authority services. We

believe however that strategic services are different from cross-authority ones
strategic ones are those which are needed regionally but not necessarily within
any single locality, and these strategic services would be best secured and
developed by the top-slicing of local authority SP budgets, and commissioning
 being passed to a Regional body. The ALG seems to view pan-London as
equating to the amalgamation of borough priorities, so perhaps the GLA is the
appropriate body to take on the strategic role.

We would also be concerned if remodelling is seen as an alternative to the

commissioning of new and purpose-built supported housing services. There has
been a dramatic decline in the amount of the Housing Corporation capital
programme which has been spent on Supported Housing schemes (from c. 10%
to 3%) since SP was introduced. The capacity needs to be restored, and we
would favour a specific new ADP bid round for supported housing. The problem
is, as always, that there is no regional mechanism for supporting capital bids.

2. Is the move to floating support services (where appropriate to the needs of

service users) right? Would your agency be a potential provider of floating
support services in London?

We are very concerned that a significant shift to floating support is being

proposed. To say that floating support offers flexibility, the opportunity to work
more dynamically towards independence and the opportunity to tailor services to
individual needs is illogical. That is what good-quality residential services offer. It
seems as though the conclusion is arrived at simply because the boroughs like
floating support.

The terminology is questionable floating support is support which comes and

goes, reflecting changes in needs. Most of the client groups who currently receive
SP services need long term help, or intensive help while they are moved towards
independence. Tenancy support would be a better description of the non-
residential service being proposed.

Secondly, the client preference argument is poorly made, focussing on clients

from a specific need group and, for reasons which are incomprehensible, from
West Yorkshire. One wonders whether this is relevant to London, but it does
betray the suspicion that the argument is made from funding expediency and
administrative convenience, rather than from any genuine concern with client
welfare or service effectiveness.

Thirdly, floating or tenancy support is often advocated because it seems cheaper.

It is only cheaper because it is less intensive, and is actually relatively inefficient
because of the time spent by staff in getting around their tenants. The Value for
Money argument for accommodation based services is ignored.

You extend the analysis to argue against shared housing. Being alone is never
the best measure of being independent. We believe that interdependence is
important and solitary confinement doesnt work for many people.

We dont understand why you want to know if we are a potential provider of

floating support services.Of course we are but ALG is not a commissioner, and
nor does it police boroughs which fail to properly respect pan-London issues.

3. Strengthening links with primary care trusts and youth offender teams are
vital. What other agencies are important for the achievement of the Strategy?

We welcome the recognition of the need to strengthen links with Health. Its
evident that in many London boroughs the Primary Care Trusts have been
reluctant and junior partners in the SP commissioning bodies. Youth Offender

Page 2 of 5
 teams are just one part of the input we need from Criminal Justice services. As
well as the Probation Service, we would like to see clearer links with CJIT and
Prison investment, and closer joint working with DATs and Community Safety.

We also think individual boroughs need to be more corporate. Where it is housing

which leads on SP, it is usually the case that Social Service are disengaged
and vice versa. This makes it difficult to secure consistency within a council.

We would also like to see much stronger connections with LSCs. We know from
our own experience that ALG has found it difficult to get them to engage with the
SP agenda, but it is crucial that efforts are redoubled.

4. What are the priorities for capital investment in developing services in London?

There is a danger in asking this question this way that we encourage a lobbying
approach to service development. We need a strong strategic regional lead,
based on an effective analysis of need and service gaps. We dont think that
identifying relative levels of need between boroughs, and relative levels of
provision across London will achieve anything other than seeking to spread the
burden between local commissioners. Central London has the most acute needs,
and has needed and will continue to need the most intensive investment.

We want a willingenss to invest in innovation, and to provide for unpopular client

groups. There is also a real risk, if all commissioning is left in the hands of local
authorities, that priority will shift towards meeting statutory (and non-
controversial) priorities.

Developing services is also about improving existing ones. Capital investment is

needed to improve the level of amenity in many existing schemes. In the case of
homelessness hostels, for example, we are fortunate to have had central
government funding. If this had not been forthcoming, would ALG have taken a
lead? This is a rhetorical question, but serves to highlight the shortcomings of a
purely borough-based approach, and the vital need for a strategic one. There is
much to be done in terms of re-modelling existing provision, and the fundamental
problem is the assumption that capital investment should have a 30-year life. This
is plainly ridiculous, and we need ALG (or someone) to be arguing for a shorter
life-span before capital re-investment is deemed appropriate.

5. Is there unmet need for any BME specific cross authority projects in your area?

The needs analyses could usefully be developed to include a BME dimension.

We are aware that the ODPM funded hostel refurbishment programme will lead to
a significant reduction in hostel bed numbers perhaps by over 400. Given that
these hostels cater for significant numbers of BME origin, there is a strong
argument for providing alternative, and perhaps more culturally specific provision
e.g. projects for older Irish men.

The question, however, serves as a double-check on borough strategies, rather

than on any missing pan-London elements.

6. Are the commitments for each of the cross authority clients groups the right
ones?

The first 3 groupings those at risk of domestic violence, offenders and those at
risk of offending, and people who misuse drugs and alcohol will certainly benefit

Page 3 of 5
 from services commisioned on a cross authority basis. The fourth grouping -
single homeless people could be seen as a broad catch all category the focus
should be kept on those in hostels and those sleeping rough, or at risk of doing
so.

The reality is there are few homeless people in hostels or sleeping rough who do
not have additional problems, which need specific support. In fact our concern
about each of the groupings is the danger of trying to identify a one size fits all
approach. For instance, our HAC at Pentonville, which you kindly reference,
works only with short term offenders. Most existing ex-offender accommodation is
aimed at those working with the probation service ie with sentences of more than
one year. Also, the need for and provision of services for drug and alcohol users
are very different, and the overlap with care and health needs careful thought
we believe the focus for SP services should be Tier One and Two levels.

We would like therefore more explicit recognition that these four groupings are
areas which need more detailed analysis, such as in the GLA Alcohol and Drugs
in London strategy, backed by a clear and firm expecation that boroughs will
deliver on the findings.

Additional Points:

1. There has been significant expenditure incurred in setting up and running the
programme. The administrative burden on providers has increased significantly. We
want to see a clear commitment to reducing SP bureaucracy.

2. We need a culture shift from commissioners towards assessment systems that

measure the effectiveness of schemes by focussing on outcomes and value for
money, and not on processes and cost.

3. We would like to see an expectation placed on all London Boroughs, including the
excellent ones, that they keep current levels of SP funds ringfenced for housing
related support services.

4. Housing related support needs to be sensibly interpreted, and while we wait for
Health and other funders to pull their weight, not overly defined to exclude important
more specialised support activities.

5. Sub-regional working offers a real opportunity to provide pathways out of Central

London, but we also need London wide mobility initiatives

6. Its not clear how the London SP Strategy will pick up on or influence local authority 5
years strategies, which for the most part will be signed off by the end of March.

7. There are few clear targets in the Strategy by which we can measure success

Overall

The strategy does not live up to its boast that it will not repeat (borough priorities) but
address issues that cannot be dealt with at borough level. ALG has no budget for
commissioning services, and there is no structure whereby it, and not the boroughs, deals
with cross-authority issues.

We lament the absence of consultation with providers and service users.

Page 4 of 5
We consider this a missed opportunity. The pan-London vision still needs to be articulated. In
the absence of this vision, it is not clear who this document is aimed at. Until the ALG has
something to offer, we consider that providers are more likely to prioritise links with local and
central government than with the ALG.

St Mungos
March 2005

Page 5 of 5