Im responding to a very misguided blog post on here by Mithran in relation to the (alleged) consultation paper on housing benefit on here. The blog was riddled with errors of fact and doesnt understand the consequences of the proposed changes to HB, one of which will see councils through social care having to pay for hostels and refuges as if they dont these will disappear. Here is what Mithran wrote:
"I've just heard from our welfare rights columnist, Gary Vaux, who has given us his verdict on proposed changes to housing benefit for people in supported housing:- This is a very interesting paper and it has clear and substantial implications for social care providers. The current system of funding 'supported accommodation' is a mess and the current housing benefit rules don't fit well with how housing and care are commissioned by local authorities. Special provision is made within housing benefit where landlords provide the additional support that many tenants require, but in practice there is often a separate contract to provide firstly the accommodation and secondly the support. This disparity causes confusion and inconsistencies, and forces many commissioners, landlords and care providers into complicated and downright devious contracting arrangements, simply to maximise housing benefit revenue. The previous Supporting People funding stream that local authorities also used to fund care costs was wound-up in April 2011 with the money involved (notionally) being incorporated into the government's overall formula grant for councils.The Department for Work and Pensions proposal is to simplify this process for 'ordinary' supported housing tenants, possibly by introducing a flat-rate payment into their housing benefit to meet support costs. This may vary geographically but the principle would be to move from a system that is based on detailed consideration of each scheme to one where payments were made straight to the tenant. This would apply to schemes such as sheltered housing, women's refuges, hostels for ex-offenders and group homes providing lower-levels of care and support. This would fit well with the introduction of universal credit in 2013, when housing benefit is abolished for new claims. There would then be a separate funding mechanism for the support costs of the much smaller number of individuals in 'specialist' schemes, with the support funding being handled outside of the housing benefit system, possibly by social care providers and possibly even linked to personal budgets. If you think that this looks remarkably like Supporting People Mark II, I wouldnt disagree too strongly. Reform is vital as the current funding and commissioning system for supported accommodation is not fit for purpose now, and probably never was. Whether the proposed two-tier system, introduced on a 'cost neutral' basis, will do any better is still open to debate."
Comment
HOUSING Benefit funds housing costs: - SUPPORTing People funds suppor costs; - Social CARE funds CARE cost. - A simple but illustrative point and the names of the funding streams themselves give a huge clue as to their respective purposes.
So when it is stated that "The Department for Work and Pensions proposal is to simplify this process for 'ordinary' supported housing tenants, possibly by introducing a flat-rate payment into their housing benefit to meet support costs. " - This is clearly false just as is "Special provision is made within housing benefit where landlords provide the additional support that many tenants require"
Housing Benefit under its 'exempt accommodation' regulations pays for the additional and intensive housing management costs that reguge and hostel provision has over say sheltered housing. This is not just semantics as even on a cursory consideration of such emergency accommodation provisions reveals that hostel and refuge need fully furnished accommodation, need staff attendance as they admit new residents 24/7 and a whole host of higher and more intense housing management costs such as greater wear and tear, higher and speedier repais service, and the huge complexity of need and risk inherent in such communal facilities.
I could go on with pages and pages of the higher housing management cost in such provisions but lets assume the point is made and look at the manifestatins of the proposals in the paper which is purporteddly a consultative document yet presented a fait accompli.
Emergency provision such as hostel / refuge is higher cost because of the need for fullhy furnished provision, staff attendance and other 'services' these provide. Additionally, these comparatively high payment levels (and £300+ per week is a national not just a London norm) are only in payment after a transparent breakdown of running costs has been monitored and judged by HB departments to be 'reasonable, realistic and justifiable.' In other words they are not an easy way to hide costs or claim higher levels for their sake.
The paper seeks to reduce these down to the level of LHA - a flat-rate paid to private landlords for general needs housing (ie not supported housing.) The average national LHA rate in-payment is £114 pw. So the paper wishes to reduce hostel and refuge rents from say £300 per room per week to £114 per room per week - a reduction of £186 per room per week. So a ten bedded refuge or hostel will lose about £97k per year!!!
Hostel and refuge provision typically has 2 funding streams HB and SP. The SP level has been inspected numerous times since 2003 to ensure that SP only covers support cost and not intensive housing management cossts as well, so the presumption that SP is paying for housing cost doesnt hold. However, when you have 2 funding streams and one of them is radically reduced the entire service becomes non-financially sustainable. A £97k reduction as above in a small provision obviates that and it would be much larger in higher unit provisions such as 20-bed or 100-bed.
The paper - bizarrely - proposes that the changes are cost-neutral. It proposes to sweep away the higher HOUSING costs from emergency provision and give that money to local councils to use for higher CARE and higher SUPPORT need provision it sees as supported living group homes. Apart from that being a cross-subsidy it places responsibility on local government to fund hostel and refuge provision per se and at a much higher level than they do now. If local government social services departments dont find added funds for refuge and hostel provision (and there is no extra money here) then hostel and refuge provision closes.
WHEN refuges and hostels close it will be local governments fault - that is the political aspect of this.
WHEN these close the added costs to the public purse will need to be met by social or health care or the criminal justice system
WHEN homeless presentations increse rapidly as they will due to other HB reforms where will the homeless go? Where will those fleeing domestic violence and abuse go?
These are the obvious manifestations of these misconceived proposals.
The need to fit in with Universal Credit and the Personalisation Agenda are strong issues in this paper.
UC comprises many issues but one is the overall benefit cap or OBC. This limits a family to a maximum of £500pw in all benefits and reliefs unless they are a war widow or disabled. How it works is the key. All benefits and reliefs (eg Council Tax Benefit) are totted up and subtracted from the £500 OBC leaving the maximum amount HB can ay for rent. The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) and National Housign Federation (NHF) release figures (so far unchallenged) that a family with 3 children receives on average £317pw in all other benefits and reliefs. Hence this leaves a maximum of £183 to pay for rent in a refuge or homeless families unit. Yet with rents there often around £250 - £350 pw this becomes unaffordable for the prospective resident and for the provider or supplier of such accommodation.
Instead of exempting emergency accommodation such as refuge and hostel and to join war widows and disabled who are already exempt, this paper seeks to force a reduction of rent to unreasonable levels and as such severely threatens the sustainability of hostels (includign homeless families units) and refuges. Whereas now such provision is fundign under quite exacting regulation and of right to be funded, this proposal makes the majority of the housign management cost discretionary. In this governments view it is better to reduce vulnerable persons rights to (rental) funding than to expose the flaws the OBC and UC clearly contains!!
Finally, Mithran says "reform is vital" and the sysyem is complex - this is poppycock. The current system has been developed over 20 years and funding at 'exempt accommodation' levels is scrutinised robustly by experts in HB departments before it is awarded. Providers have to provide substantive evidence for each claimed cost of these HB eligible 'services' as they are called and conform to the law of HB regulations (which are secondary legislation.)
The DWP rationale for reform is that costs are higher than in general needs accommodation that would be decidedd by a Rent Officer Determination or ROD. Yes of course they are as furnished and staffed accommodation costs more than unfurnished and unstaffed accommodation!!!
The DWP cite a 100+ page report they issued in 2010 (Report 714 by Boath, Baker and Wilikinson - ISBN 978 1 84712 894 2) as the rationale for this. Yet this research report states on page 79: -
"Software systems do not allow local authorities to report the numbers of claimants in 'exempt accommodation' reliably" - So the rationale given by DWP and definitively so that it costs more is pure guesswork in this deceitful consultation.
And the same report again on Page 79 says: -
"It has proven even more difficult to estimate the numbers of claimants living in other types of supported accommodation."
The claimed rationale is therefore at best a very difficult estimate to arrive at and most definitely is not fact and not fact on which to base proposals. presented a fait accompli, that will reomve most refuge and hostel provisin and leave the system in chaos.
This alleged consultation is truly incompetent and have hugely dangerous implications and manifestations that need to be considered. If they are considered and rejected or if they are not considered then th baby truly will be thrown out with the bathwater!
Hi SPeye,
Thanks for this. I probably wasn't very clear but the blog referred to was a guest post from our welfare rights columnist, Gary Vaux, not something written by me (sorry it's a touch confusing).
I'll let him know about your comments and he may choose to respond through CareSpace.
It's good to hear your comments on this issue anyway - we'll see if we can look into it.
Cheers,
Mithran
I appreciate and note the difference of the guest blog post. My post argues strongly that the guest benefit advisor got this so wrong in matters of fact and perspective and especially how it will manifest. I post very infrequently on this site as it focuses on social care and in housing terms largely just the supported living model rather than the much wider supported housing sector which is my background. This consultation paper is so radical and holds so many implications that will impact massively on social care provision - In short it is more than a housing issue it is a matter of real concern for all who work in social care
Im surprised the social care sector and this site is very quiet on the impact this radical change will have and without patronising or conceit, this sector needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
This is not a welfare benefit matter it is a housing benefit matter and while that difference is subtle its proposed impact is devastating. A worked example below explains:
A 5 bed supported living model group home for those with MH or ALD has 3 elements of funding that make up its sustainability. HB, SP and care funding. If one of those reduces markedly then the impact is not just on the other two to increase, the whole viability of the fundign model is threatened.
This DWP paper proposes to reduce HB to a flat rate LHA payment of approximately £100pw. The current system reveals -in the research paper this consultation is based on issued earlier by DWP - that the average rent fundign in payment is over £200pw. Straightaway thats a £500pw reduction to the provider or £26k per annum - thats a huge shortfall which can easily threaten the viability of the entire scheme.
It will be up to local councils to decide if they wish to make up that shortfall - Yet no funding has been allocated what will happen?
Will the council find the money? If not will the provider have to reduce staffing by 1 FTE and thereby throw out the hours of support or care assessed? Will providers simply reduce the service provision and make it unsuitable for tenants there? Will provider simply flee the market and shut up shop? Will providers seek to make what is now claimed as (intensive) housing management tasks support or care tasks so these services can be paid that way? How much more complicated will funding of such services become?
Given the change to maiking half the current average rent payments of £200 discretionary from guaranteed payments based on right (through HB regulations) reduce provision due to this discretionary nature?
Undoubtedly it will as both providers will be less likely to enter or remain in the 'market' and will this make SWs more reluctant to advise supported living models of provision? Will this reduce choice ironically at a time when the paper calls for more Personalisation? Yes it will.
Moving away from the supported living model, what will the impact be for SWs on the likely bigger reduction of provision of emergency accommodation such as refuges and hostels? The lesser provision the lesser scope for solutions incorporating the stability of settled accommodation is an obvious impact with significant consequences.
I attach below something I posted elsewhere that shows how the funding changes can and will impact on strategy, development and operational practice in refuges. The same impact and financial perversities these proposals reveal for refuges could equally apply to all forms of supported accommodation
"
The proposal to replace the current HB in ‘exempt’ / supported accommodation with a flat rate of LHA is the central basis of the consultation paper, Can that work?
The legal definition of a ‘hostel ‘as found in current HB regulations can and does apply to a single homeless hostel or a DV refuge. While both are emergency temporary and short-term provisions they (necessarily) differ in terms of room size. A homeless hostel has single room sizes and a refuge much larger rooms that can and do accommodate 5 or even more persons.
All of them can also conform to house in multiple occupation (HMO) regulations which lay down minimum standards for amongst others room sizes - A single occupancy bedroom has a minimum square footage of about 71sq ft; a double occupancy room is 114sq ft; a triple 161; a quadruple 212 and a quintuple 261 sq.ft.
So if a room in a refuge is 212 sq.ft. in size would that attract the 4 bed flat rate of LHA or the 1 bed rate?
The financial difference is huge with a 1-bed LHA rate circa £97 per week and a 4-bed about £162pw – using Birmingham rates in these cases. The difference of £65 per room per week for 16 rooms can be as much as £54,000 in a year. If we use Brighton LHA rates currently at £144 and £319 the difference is £146,000 per year.
Such a spread of regional difference (which the paper envisages as one option) is unworkable and even more complex than the current system it seeks to replace.
In both cases the provider has a perverse financial incentive to take larger families and a perverse financial disincentive to take a single women fleeing violence. And if these are under 35 would the single room rate of £55 (in B’ham) and £80 (In Brighton) apply?
If it did it would be an even larger perverse disincentive and a much higher financial reduction. Yet isn’t this government only paying LHA on occupancy and banging a big drum on under-occupancy as part of HB reforms? It is and as we all know they present this as should an older person still occupy the 3 or 4 bed house after their kids have flown the coop and not as a single woman with no children fleeing violence being refused admission on financial grounds to a refuge!
Applying their same logic it would apply and especially so with these perverse financial disincentives!
Women fleeing DV can currently present to any homeless department or refuge in the country. Local connection rules do not apply. Yet would a council in Brighton be willing to pay £319 per week LHA to accommodate a woman with 4 children from Birmingham who could be accommodated for £161 in and around Birmingham or in many other areas?
Or would we see a form of Gatekeeping being exercised and such refuge being denied? Perhaps we would see Brighton and other high cost LHA areas coercing refuges to reduce the sizes of their rooms at each refuge? Perhaps we will see councils inserting clauses in SP contracts – such as some south coast councils have done already – which state any rough sleeper with no local connection can only receive 3 nights accommodation and support? In the days of no monitoring of SP what is to stop this pernicious practice applied to one SP client group being applied to all others, including those fleeing DV?
Many refuges can often only accommodate one in five or even just one in ten of those that apply to them. So could refuge providers – out of financial necessity and such perverse incentives and not of ethos or good practice – cherry pick larger families to realise greater rental income?
The above illustrates not just the financial perversities of a flat-rate LHA but also shows that strategy and operational change will flow from the revenue funding changes proposed. Practice will follow funding and instead of providers developing refuge services that work at the most cost-efficient way, they will develop service according to what funding is available.
If the 1 bed LHA rate is used and is not dependent on room size as in HMO regulations would these 16 (quad) room refuges then partition the 16 rooms to become 32 double rooms and so get more rental income? Financially that would make sense as if a refuge is to get this revenue per room regardless of size then this doubles their income. This would then perversely discriminate against women fleeing violence with more than one child and larger families would lose out.
Making a ‘flat-rate’ payment is a universal across-the-board payment and hides many perversities such as those explained above which show far more perversities would be in the new ‘system’ than there are now. The new flat-rate ‘system’ would be far less transparent than the current system and far less robustly monitored at claim than is the case now.
The current system does not hold these perversities or opaqueness and critically, does NOT impact negatively on practice as the proposed flat-rate changes, however applied, would.
The naivety and incompetence of DWP in seeking something that is easier to administer and understand for them and conforms to Universal Credit - their key criteria – would see the unacceptable perversities and unacceptable impact on operational practice of the points I have highlighted above.
These perversities and changes are precisely what an impact assessment would look at and yet we have no impact assessment here as DWP hasn’t done one or released one. What is the point of having a claimed ‘consultation’ on changes if there is no (potential) impact assessment of what such change will bring? Rather this is an imposed change with the only consultative aspect being the design of that change to flat rate LHA.
The proposal to pay a flat rate will therefore not work in refuge provision orin many if not all forrms of supported housing."
I had to read your post twice before I was able to appreciate the full enormity of the 'proposed' changes. The proposals are outrageous and will impact on our most vulnerable people 'again'! What worries me the most is this - these reforms will impact on the minority not the majority of people in society. We could raise awareness but will people really do anything about it? This is because it will impact on 'other's' and not themselves.
Does anyone have any thoughts on how we can address this?
I wrote the original post that you have commented on. As I said in my opening paragraph, these proposals have a profound significance on supported housing of all types and I'm sorry if you feel I didnt draw them out in sufficient detail within the limits of the article I submitted. However, I dont agree with every aspect of your analysis and wth some of the "factual" claims that you make. For example, you refer to the role of Supporting People in providing funding for support - last April, the specific SP budgets that local authorities managed were rolled-up into general rate support that councils receive. This in itself changes the landscape in which HB operates. Other drivers for change include:-
Given these changes, the role of HB simply has to be reconsidered. The DWP proposals are presented as 'cost-neutral' and not as a cost-cutting measure - for the time being, we have to take that at face value. In addition, there is considerable support in the social care sector for decisions about the funding of social care to be taken within that sector (especially if protected and ring-fenced, unlike Supporting People was), not by HB decision-makers.
For example, this is the joint response to the announcement of the proposals from a number of key organisations:-
Joint statement in response to the Government’s review of Housing Benefit for supported housing.
This consultation acknowledges that those who are most vulnerable in our society often face greater challenges when finding suitable accommodation. We have long argued this point and the Government’s acknowledgement of this important issue is welcomed.
According to recent Department for Work and Pensions estimates there about 170,000, including 40,000 people with a learning disability, that depend on the 'exempt accommodation' system to keep a roof over their head. It is therefore vital that the Government sticks to its commitment to protecting the livelihood and dignity of those who most need its support.
We are reassured that the DWP is not proposing major change for people living in local authority or housing associations, supported and sheltered housing. We agree that there is a need for reform of the system to ensure that it is more transparent and open. However, we now need an open and wide-ranging debate about how we ensure that the vulnerable, disabled and older people have somewhere to live that suits their needs and enables them to live more independently in their communities in the long term. We look forward to contributing to this debate
Signed:
Mencap
National Housing Federation
Housing Options
Progress Housing Group Association of Supported Living
Association for Real Change
There is obviously a great deal of danger involved in any review of benefit provision and you are absolutely correct to point out what the implications could be for some providers and tenants. That is why it is vital that the social care sector engages with this debate and it is not confined solely to HB professionals. As in the joint statement mentioned above, there has to be HB reform in this area, and an open and intelligent debate about how to fund the support costs of vulnerable tenants is both essential and overdue. I'm glad that you have contributed to that debate and I'm sure that your submission in response to the consultation will echo the views that you have expressed so eloquently. I'm not disagreeing with you about the potential dangers if this reform is not handled well, especially the 'flat-rate LHA plus standardised amount' . My posting was designed to alert the social care sector to the proposals, and not provide the detailed critique that they need to be subjected to.
The DWP paper states correctly that the only landlord types that can claim 'exempt accommodation' status are all social landlords - whether they be associations, councils, charities or not-for-profit landlords.
These proposed changes are the final straw for many. We have already had announce this week that Hyde Group -one of the top ten largest associations in the UK - has sold its entire support and care arm to another association. This was largely due to SP cuts and negotiations and decision on this pre-dated this consultation paper. SP is the other principal funding stream for supported housing. [For the supported living model its a given that care funding is always at threat.]
Now we see the other principal funding stream - HB - put in severe jeopardy and the likelihood is many social landlords will also exit the market. They will definitely be reviewing their position in the supported housing market.
Supported housing in all its forms whether it be hostel, refuge other emergency provision or supported living sees an obvious need for more intensive housing management and much higher housing managment costs. For example staffing, furnished accommodation, much greater wear and tear, shorter repair response times and greater repair costs. As well as the financial risk social landlords take on reputational risk factors when developing or sustaining supported housing.
The fact that the current HB system funds all of the added costs takes away much of the financial risks but the reputational ones of having a scheme for mentally disordered offenders, substance misusers and other NIMBY client groups remain. Make the financial risks greater - which this proposal does hugely - and this will obviously impact on the reputational and other risks of such schemes and continued involvement of social landlords.
Throw in the uncertainty of SP with even 'deserving' client groups such as refuges being cut bu 25 - 40% and we can all see why Hyde Group (with 40000 properties) took the decision to get out of supported housing.
The DWP paper also throws into the equation the Personalisation Agenda - housing needs to change due to this it claims. Yet even in theory Personalisation assumes that supply (of suitable accommodation) will remain to increase service user choice and every other aspect of funding for supported housing - SP, care and now HB funding - are becoming everr greater risk by the day and reducing supply. So even if Personalisation could work - and I dont think it could in supported housing - then all other variables suggest strongly that reduced choice will be available anyway.
Social landlords dont care much for Personalisation - not out of principle, but because of the funding models it is used to. The costs of running any SH service are worked out and then these expenditure costs are apportioned correctly between housing management (HB pay) support (SP pays) and care (social services pay). These accommodation-based models assume 100% support uptake by residents. So if one in a ten bed facility wants to be supported by an external agency then support income drops 10%, if 2 its 20% and the whole funding model disappears.
All of the pointers suggest in the strongest possible terms that supply of supported accommodation will dimish and diminish sharply. The impact on social care and wider health care and criminal justice system will be enormous.
Gary, firstly none of my comments were meant to be personal and I hope they are taken that way. Secondly, for some reason your post timed at 7.45am was not up when I posted at 11.23am, so I have not responded to it or ignored it.
Yes SP did have its ringfence removed and many councils have issued large percentage cuts in SP funding but it is still the only funding stream that pays for support. Secondly, I don’t see how this impacts on the HB landscape. HB regulations are very specific and it’s not a simple case of if SP funding reduces that providers can seek additional HB to make up the shortfall. There is very little grey area in HB regulations for exempt accommodation services.
It seems your welcoming of the consultation paper – which is only on the design of the proposals and not open to other proposals – as the current system limits available suitable accommodation, The DWP could simply open up the provider types who can qualify for providing ‘exempt accommodation’ if this was the main issue. But it isn’t and even that definition is an artificial barrier. I’m aware of many private landlords who have either set up separate not-for-profit companies or worked in partnership with existing ones and thereby developed supported accommodation services that come under exempt accommodation provision.
An open debate about how to fund support costs I fully agree with – yet this has no bearing on HB issues. HB funds housing management and intensive housing management (IHM) and within IHM it obviously needs to fund furnished provision and staffing in emergency provision such as hostel and refuge. Yet this paper is seeking to make that discretionary and that is bizarre – though no more bizarre than the DWP bracketing sheltered housing in with hostel and refuge provision – sheltered housing is not even supported housing according to the previous CEO of Anchor its biggest provider – but it is nothing like emergency short-term temporary provision such as hostel and refuge which DWP puts under the same label for some reason!
An open debate is one thing re support, yet there is no proposals on any funding for support except sweeping away HB from sheltered, hostel and refuge and giving this housing money to social care to determine who gets. Why? It pays for IHM such as necessary furnished provision etc and even then all expenditure cost has to be scrutinised under law (HB regs are secondary legislation) as being ‘reasonable, realistic and justifiable’ before it is paid. It is highly scrutinised and wholly transparent and far more robustly decided than any system proposed under this paper.
Finally, I have outlined many reasons why social landlords will flee the market as this is one change too many and in the context of SP cuts. Private landlords will not enter the market for LHA as this will be paying them the same for so much added (financial and other) risk. Just these proposals will see accommodation provision reducing and what choice is that for service users – the simple answer is far less choice.
I must say I'm surprised at the lack of awareness of social care staff as to the implications of the DWP proposals on replacing Housing Benefit in exempt and supported accommodation (ESA) with Local Housing Allowance or LHA. Let me apply this for you (Please excuse the patronising tone but the scanarios below show the urgency and the need to wake up and smell the coffee.)
Social Services place many LAC and CiN cases in single hostels and are doing so increasingly by only issuing SP contracts to such hostels if they guarantee 'x%' of nominations from the council and other statutory bodies (so including Youth Offending Service clients too.)
This DWP 'consultation' paper is only consultative on the design of the change to LHA payments as replacement and not on the decision to impose LHA or LHA plus a percentage payments. As the following figures will show that imposition needs to be thrown out or single hostels will close and thereby present massive additional costs for social care (and Police, wide criminal justic system, health care and the general public purse too.)
The DWP consultation is based on a DWP research paper issued in 2010 - ISBN 978 1 84712 894 2 - which reveals on page 44 at figure 4.4. that the current national average rent paid by HB is £180pw.
The LHA rate for under 35s is
(a) £58pw in North West ; (b) £55pw in West Midlands; (c) £58pw in North East; (d) £68pw in South East and (e) £65pw in South West.
So look at a 20 bed hostel in each area of England and the financial reduction in each is in the region of 65% and in money terms about £120 - £140k per year and means many if not all will close.
Where can social services, YOS place young adults? The answer is nowhere.
Even if LHA paid at 1 bed LHA rate which is circa £105 - £120 pw this is still a massive percentage and monetary reduction and hostels will close because of this. The only way hostels (or refuges) can survive is if statutory services pay more in support or care.
In the absence of supply of hostels then social services and YOS will need to use B&B provision or care provision and both will have hugely increased demand (which of course pushes up the price of these inappropriate accommodation provisions up further.) The huge financial and other pressures this will place on statutory services is monumental and your 'partners' in health care, criminal justice system and elsewhere are not going to be too happy either are they?
Even if hostels or foyers could reduce costs by the huge amounts these proposals dictate and impose (they cant) then as staffing costs are 65 - 80% of overall costs they would be so severly reduced that the health and safety of residents couldnt be guaranteed. They couldnt admit 24/7 as they do now (hugely higher EDT costs) and the stability they currently provide so that YPs can get their problems and life sorted out would also go.
Hostels couldnt provide anything like the levels of furnishings they do now if any at all - and these are still pretty basic now - and so costs of soft and hard furnishings would have to be borne by statutory bodies. From fixed pots of money in personal budgets it wouldnt be much of a choice for YPs either would it? Or how about care budgets that are already strecthed and invariably in deficit already, what will this impact have there?
What about bed-blocking in residential care? Currently with hostel provision bed-blocking is a relatively minor problem and minor cost. It will become a major problem and major cost and will lead to demand on residential care increasing which of course increase costs of residential care and further pressure on care budgets!
Hopefully, the above will give enough flavour of things to come to wake up statutory services and realise the monumental impact this will have.
Of course it may not, and some will (naively) believe that 100 unit plus hostels is the answer through economies of scale being worthier than institutionalisation. Well even they cant be afforded as they need staffing attendance and furnishing and so theroposals cant even afford such inappropriate Leviathan options! Lastly on this "localism"will see any such proposals denied by local objections even if someone can find the capital fundign to build them in the first place!
To all those myopic 'Personalisation' advocates that bang a big (theoretical) drum about choice - you know who I mean all those commissioners in their safe ivory towers who love such soundbites as 'choice' - and to all the bean counters in Finance departments that bemoan the current costs - (yes they are constant whatever the system!) you need to rethink and quickly
(a) NW - £127,000; (b) West Mid