Supporting People Local Financial Benefits Model South East London Tom Ashton 17 December 2009

1. Supporting People Local Financial Benefits ModelSouth East LondonTom Ashton17 December 2009

2. Objectives / expectations • The objectives of this session are to: • Explain the Supporting People National Benefits Model and the work we’ve carried out to • update it • build a local model • pilot that local benefits model • Explain the context for the local model • Demonstrate the local model • Explain how the user guide works • Answer any questions Are there any other expectations we need to meet in this session?

3. Agenda / Contents • Introduction to / re-cap of the Supporting People National Benefits Model <15 mins> • Detail of the recent project • Updating the work • Adding new client groups • Developing a local model <10 mins> • The local model • Context & where to find it • Demonstration and user guide <10 mins> • Expectation review & questions <10 mins> • Our contact details

4. Introduction to / recap of the Supporting People Financial Benefits Model

5. We start by explaining how the national model works... • The national model, for each of a set of client groups, compares the cost of: • existing arrangements (involving Supporting People) • an alternative provision scenario. • The alternative provision scenario for each client group was built on the assumption that, in a world without SP, current clients would get a mix of: • existing arrangements, with the SP-funded element removed • alternative residential care arrangements (e.g. nursing care, psychiatric care, rehab etc.)

6. ...it includes the use of two kinds of costing • Costs of existing arrangements and the alternative scenario include • ‘Package costs’: These are the costs associated with providing support (e.g. SP services, Housing costs, Living costs, Social services costs, Benefits administration) • ‘Event costs’: These are the costs associated with events that happen to clients (either positive, planned interventions or adverse events e.g. Health interventions, Costs associated with committing or become a victim of crime, Costs associated with becoming homeless (rough sleeping, tenancy failure etc.)).

7. National Model Example: Learning Disabilities (1) • For the 31,238 SP supported households containing people with learning disabilities, the two scenarios were: • The existing arrangement: 100% (31,238): existing arrangement Package cost (per household unit): Event cost (per household unit): Total cost (per household unit): £39,010 £2,327 £41,337 x 31,238 = £1.29bn An alternative arrangement: 65% (20,305): residential care 35% (10,933): existing without SP Package cost (per household unit): Event cost (per household unit): Total cost (per household unit): £79,133 £2,327 £81,460 £27,185 £4,697 £31,882 x 20,305 = £1.65bn + x 10,933 = £349m =£2.00bn

8. National Model Example: Learning Disabilities (2) 100% (31,238): existing arrangement • The net financial benefit is £711m: • £2.00bn - £1.29bn = £711m. x 31,238 = £1.29bn Package cost (per household unit): Event cost (per household unit): Total cost (per household unit): £39,010 £2,327 £41,337 An alternative arrangement: 65% (20,305): residential care 35% (10,933): existing without SP Package cost (per household unit): Event cost (per household unit): Total cost (per household unit): £79,133 £2,327 £81,460 £27,185 £4,697 £31,882 x 20,305 = £1.65bn + x 10,933 = £349m =£2.00bn

9. National Model Example: Learning Disabilities (3) • Event costs: the point to note is that event costs are much higher for people who don’t receive SP support or residential care. Some key events drive this situation…

10. Similar work was done for other client groups, producing a total benefit Remember that the client groups are of different sizes Note also that coverage doesn’t include all client groups

11. The recent work with CLG (Feb – June 2009)

12. We carried out three tasks in our recent work with CLG • Updating the data in the national model • Adding new client groups • Converting to a local model

13. The National Updating was primarily a matter of housekeeping • Every data source that was cross-referenced in the original model was checked, and was updated if the source had been updated • The cost indexation (which uses the RPI) was adjusted to bring all costs forward to 2009 levels • Other minor adjustments were made, including an adjustment to our treatment of the groups of older people to group those categorised as “other” (primarily people receiving community alarms or Home Improvement Agency services) • We adjusted our estimates of package costs, since discussion with Hilary Bartle – and independent consultant who had previously been deputy programme director – suggested that they had been under-estimated in the original work The updating of the national model drove modelled benefits up from £2.77bn to £3.41bn. A number of factors drove this, although a key one was inflation in the cost of escalated interventions (residential care etc)

14. We added the following client groups • People with alcohol problems • Teenage parents • Young people leaving care • People with physical or sensory disabilities • Together with the client groups already covered, described in the previous section, this coverage to 93% of Supporting People spend nationally. • Some client groups remain un-modelled – these are the smaller groups: People with HIV/AIDS, Rough sleepers, Refugees, Travellers & a generic client group

15. The Local Authority work had three key strands • The three strands were • Engaging through stakeholder meetings in London • Engaging through regional group meetings • Piloting • Engaging through a stakeholder meeting in London (31 March) produced agreement on the best approach to a local model, and follow up meetings were held in May • Regional group meetings were also used to inform people of progress • The model was piloted in early May with Hampshire County Council, Middlesbrough Council & Leicester City Council We are now returning to Regional Groups to publicise the model These figures are based on 2004/5 SPLS data

16. We considered a number of options, and selected one of them with local authorities Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Client numbers Client numbers Client numbers Client numbers Package costs Package costs Package costs Alternative scenario composition Alternative scenario composition Event reductions from SP Using one option has the advantage that it produces consistency of output. This is our preferred option; it allows for local variation but avoids asking people to make judgements that may be difficult to make at local level. Data that can be edited in local model Option 2 is what has been implemented.

17. The Local Model

18. The Supporting People Financial Benefits Model is published on CLG’s website • There are two links: • A report on the national model can be found at • http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/financialbenefitsresearch • The local modelling work – together with a user guide can be found at • http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/financialbenefitsguide

19. The first point of context is that local modelling has “offensive” and “defensive” purposes • The “offensive” purpose is to allow Authorities to see what they are gaining from using Supporting People services • The “defensive” purpose is to allow them to defend these costs to other stakeholders • To some extent there has to be an assumption that benefits locally are similar to benefits for the national picture The exact level of benefits that Authorities gain from Supporting People services will depend on their efficiency & their quality of delivery. It is not in the scope of the modelling to support judgements about that.

20. In terms of “offensive” modelling the context is as follows 20

21. We will demonstrate the local model • We will imagine ourselves to be representatives of Birmingham City Council – and we will edit relevant parts of the model

22. The documentation for the local model is similar to the pre-existing documentation • The model documentation breaks down into six key sections: • Summary • Model purpose and logical structure • Quick start guide • The spreadsheet • Glossary • Technical appendix 5 pages that explain in outline how the model works 10 pages that explain how to use the model 20 pages that explain how the model works in full Glossary that includes detail of how the modelled client groups are constructed National documentation was also updated for CLG to use

23. QuestionsExpectation reviewAOB

24. Our contact information

25. Contact details