The 2016 budget and complex needs – some reflections
Kicked into the long grass?
The 2014 autumn statement and 2015 budget both suggested that calls – including a call from Revolving Doors – to extend the Troubled Families approach to single people with complex and multiple needs had been heard. While the 2014 autumn statement included a general proposal to “look to develop and extend the principles of the Troubled Families programme to other groups of people with complex needs”, the following budget set out the proposals in terms of outcomes, including reducing the “estimated £4.3 billion spent because of a failure to support troubled individuals struggling with homelessness, addiction and mental health problems.” After those seemingly clear statements of intent, things have gone quiet.
Many of the policy decisions in the 2016 budget have limited direct bearing on people with complex needs. One that seems likely to, however, is the announcement of £115m to tackle rough sleeping (p.39). Rough sleeping has doubled in England between 2010 and 2015. This breaks down as:
- £100m to deliver 2,000 low-cost ‘second stage’ accommodation for people moving on from more intensive (and costly) shorter term services such as hostels for homeless people and people fleeing domestic violence. As long as these are additional spaces, this seems like a sensible move – ‘bed blocking’, particularly in areas of high housing demand and cost, can hamper the ability of specialist services to help those most in need;
- £10m to support and scale-up innovative ways to prevent and reduce rough sleeping, particularly in London, building on the success of No Second Night Out;
- A doubling of the £5m earmarked for a proposed national rough sleeping social impact bond to £10m;
- Although uncosted, rough sleeping EU migrants will continue to receive help to return to their countries of origin.
The budget confirms that the 1% reduction in social rents for supported housing has been postponed. It also confirms that the proposal to cap social rents at LHA levels has been rephased – although it’s debatable that it’s been delayed. As things stand, it’ll still come into effect in April 2018 (with potentially calamitous effects for the supported housing sector), although it is likely that this sign of willing will be welcomed by most in that sector.
Devolution
There are also further moves in the direction of devolution, with a commitment to work towards the devolution of powers over criminal services to the Greater Manchester combined authority (p.70). This comes with further commitments clearly signalling that devolution of policy, budgets and (some) tax raising powers will continue as the direction of travel.
Who makes the decisions that matter?
For Revolving Doors, and those we work with, some of the most important decisions often sit outside the top line fiscal decisions of the budget. Many are taken further away from Westminster – within local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and in the offices of police and crime commissioners (PCCs).
We already knew that public health funding, which supports services such as substance misuse treatment, would face year on year reductions. We also knew that local authority funding likewise faces further reductions while, more positively, the funding of mental health services has been prioritised. Police funding has been protected, at least to the extent it was in the 2015 autumn statement. This is important for people with complex needs as alongside ensuring that police services maintain the safe and crime-free communities from which we all benefit, PCCs also control funding that can be used to ensure that people are diverted away from offending and the criminal justice system, or that they have access to the right package of services once they’re in contact with it.
Perhaps, given the uneven but very clear drive to localism, thinking in terms of a national ‘troubled individuals’ programme no longer makes sense. It’s not clear that’s the case; while the claims for the success of the first wave of the Troubled Families programme have not yet been confirmed by a full external evaluation, the feedback from many stakeholders (even some sceptical ones) is that the national funding and focus has enabled some support to be provided to disadvantaged families. That national focus has the potential to ensure that groups and needs aren’t overlooked – for example, the clusters of needs often faced by women rather than by men.
Consequently, while we will continue to work with local authorities and other stakeholders to help them to improve services locally, we’ll also carry on talking to central government to see what the prospects are of reigniting their previous interest in more integrated approaches to complex and multiple needs.
