This is the second Supporting People Strategy; the first, the "Shadow Strategy" having been agreed two years ago. The Supporting People Team want this strategy to make a real difference to the direction of the programme and the network of services available to service users.

Supporting People funds, low level housing related support. It is our intention that the programme will help as many people in Hampshire as possible through targeted, cost effective services.

The Team will be conducting in depth strategic reviews of all sectors in all areas throughout the life of this strategy. These reviews will then guide investment, remodelling, commissioning and decommissioning.

The first year of Supporting People has been fraught with budgetary difficulties, particularly in Hampshire, but we hope for a more stable situation to ensure that the exciting potential of the programme can be made real.

1.2 Consultation on the Five Year Strategy

This strategy contains different sections which have been developed through consultation processes and timetables however they have all been discussed at District Core Groups, District Inclusive Forums and the County Inclusive Forum.

The strategy as a whole has been the subject of extensive consultation between December 2004 and mid February 2005. Consultation questions have been posed at the end of each section of the strategy and listed together in a separate appendix at the end of the document. The final document has been agreed by the overall Commissioning Body and the County Core Group.

1.3 Structure of the Five Year Strategy

The Five Year Strategy begins with an Executive Summary briefly outlining the Supporting People policy, the emphasis on preventative services, and eight principal overall objectives for the next five years.

Section Two describes the progress since Hampshire agreed the Supporting People Shadow Strategy for 2003-4.

Section Three describes in some detail the Supporting People decision making process, which can be particularly complex in two tier local authority areas such as Hampshire. The different groups and agencies and their roles are defined. This section lists all of the strategies that Supporting People must link in with at the national, regional, county, district and primary care trust levels.

Section Four moves on to the policy and strategic direction that will drive the Supporting People programme over the next five years. It defines the policy and strategic review process that will be the basis for ensuring that Supporting People funding is targeted at the priorities and strategies of the partner agencies. This section also contains the Hampshire Supporting People Policy Framework.

Section Five concentrates on data analysis, looking at :

· The supply of services

· The annual spend by service user group

· Service capacity by service user group

· The provision of accommodation and non-accommodation based services.

· The distribution of Supporting People spending by District Council

· A profile of service provider types.

Section Five also summarises the work that has been carried out on gap analysis, looking at the Prevention Services Grids, needs analysis and also at the results of the Pathways needs research in Hampshire.

Section Six includes a description of how potential new services will be prioritised in the first year. It also contains Client Group needs statements, and a re-prioritisation of the existing unfunded priorities, which was identified in the Shadow Strategy.

Section Seven contains an analysis of the service monitoring and review process. The review process is explained and progress to date is outlined. The section also sets out the way in which Hampshire Supporting People (SP) tackles issues arising from reviews, through the setting of objectives, timescales and ongoing monitoring. The future of the review process in the light of the introduction of strategic reviews is mapped out.

Section Eight deals with Hampshire's plans for the future. Headline objectives for the next five years are set and more detailed plans and shorter term objectives for the next 12 to 18 months are specified. The section sets out the financial methodology adopted, the way in which SP aims to control the budget and the approach to risk and contingency planning. Section Eight also contains the Cross Authority Statement and an assessment of the issues faced.

1.4 Executive Summary

This first Five Year Strategy has been developed in consultation with SP partners; Hampshire County Council Social Services, Health, Probation, Housing, Providers, Service Users and other stakeholders. The strategy will be reviewed and updated annually.

The aims of the strategy are:

· To assess the current status of the programme

· To guide the development of the programme from 2005 - 2010

· To ensure service provision meets evidenced needs

· To guide those involved in the provision of housing related support when devising their own strategies.

The ODPM have produced the following definition of the SP Programme:

The Supporting People programme offers vulnerable people the opportunity to improve their quality of life by providing a stable environment which enables greater independence

It will deliver high quality and strategically planned housing-related services which are cost effective and reliable, and complement existing care services. The planning and development of services will be needs led. Supporting People is a working partnership of local government, Service Users and support agencies

Hampshire SP Policy and Prevention

Hampshire's Commissioning Body has adopted a `Policy Framework' following extensive consultation with partners, stakeholders and Service Users which clearly set out the nature and strategic direction of the programme within the County.

In addition to the Policy Framework, `Prevention Statements' have been agreed. These apply the principles of the `Policy Framework' to different service user groups within the programme.

Based upon these statements, strategic reviews of services within each Client Group will be undertaken, followed by service reviews which serve to implement the results of the strategic review.

What is a Prevention Statement?

Each service user group statement defines an agreed set of expectations on behalf of all partner agencies for SP funding, emphasising the potential benefits that the programme can have for each agency and their Service Users. SP expects all services to demonstrate that their work will contribute to the Prevention Statement. In this way SP will ensure that Service Users and Partner Agencies are best served by the efficient and effective use of resources

Objectives for the Five Year Strategy

Tasks for the immediate and long term future are set out in detail within the strategy. In brief, the following objectives have been identified for the next five years :

Objective	Detail
1	Implement the revised service and strategic review process
2	Improve awareness of and access to SP services
3	Implement Communications and Partnership Strategy
4	Undertake research into the needs of BME groups
5	Link in with capital funding sources : · Regional Housing Board · Housing Corporation · Registered Social Landlords
6	In partnership with Portsmouth, Southampton and Isle of Wight adopt a cross authority approach to services of mutual concern
7	Undertake a strategic review of Home Improvement Agencies to identify the best model for delivery of this service
8	Review legal framework for decision making processes between the AA and CCG

Consultation - Section ONE

1. Is the structure of the document clear and accessible ?

2. Has the consultation carried out been inclusive of all interested parties ?

3. Are the overarching objectives specific measurable accurate realistic and timely (SMART) ?

4. Are there additional objectives we need to consider / include ?

Section TWO: PROGRESS TO DATE

Summary of Section TWO

In this section we:

· Detail areas that progress has been made since the agreements of the SP strategy for 2003-4

· Discuss the allocation of funding for pipeline services before the implementation of Supporting People and refer to the appendix which details the twenty three new services that were funded

· Describe the development of the strategy for the delivery of home improvement agencies at a county level reflecting the commissioning of a new agency for three districts in Hampshire, thereby ensuring county wide provision

2.1 New Developments

Following the implementation period, the SP programme went live on 1 April 2003. Core tasks since implementation include :

·Successful implementation of a three year programme of service reviews by April 2006

· Management of a cash limited budget

· Delivery of a monthly payment schedule for over 800 services / 19,000 Service Users

· Performance and quality monitoring of all SP contracted services

· Maintenance and development of the consultative and decision making processes at District and County level

· Development of an hours based contract allowing Providers a greater flexibility of delivery

· In partnership with the CAB, SP ensures that no eligible Service Users are excluded from eligibility for SP funding

Changes in the SP workload since going live have required a more centralised working pattern than was previously in place. The challenge has been to retain valued district relationships and facilitate a consistent approach to reviews. This has been successfully achieved by retaining the role of the district coordinator and the appointment of a centrally based Review Support Team consisting of a County Review Coordinator and four Project Officers. Regular progress meetings are held and clearly defined targets set. To support Providers with the administrative burden of SP, training events have been held around the County. The positive contribution of local Providers is recognised and appreciated.

The review programme commenced in April 2003 following a timetable prepared upon a risk basis and all scheduled Year One service reviews have been carried out. A revised hours-based contract has been introduced following extensive consultation.

2.2 New Services

Hampshire was successful in securing the country's largest allocation of pipeline funding from ODPM (£1,402,451.00). This additional resource provided funding for 23 new services, all of which fell within the categories identified in the National and County Steers. New services include those for women fleeing domestic violence, single homeless people with support needs, people with mental health problems and older mentally infirm people, in all providing support to an additional 200 individuals.

For details of these services see Appendix A

2.3 Development of County Home Improvement Agencies

Significant progress has been made since 1991/ 92 when Hampshire began funding Home Improvement Agencies (HIAs).

In line with the ODPM drive to ensure that full geographical coverage of HIA agencies is achieved by 2006, Hampshire SP submitted a bid for funding to provide additional HIA services in Winchester and Test Valley, those areas not previously covered. The bid was successful and the additional funding provided the opportunity for SP, SSD and the districts to work in partnership to issue a tender for the proposed new service. A consortium of local Providers was successful in tendering and a joint contract has been awarded to provide an HIA service covering Winchester, Test Valley and East Hants.

All strategic partners are signatories to the new contract.
Between now and the expiry of the contracts all parties will take part in a strategic review to look at how best to provide HIA services in the future.

For progress against the Shadow Strategy Objectives see Appendix B

Consultation - Section TWO

· Are you aware of any developments or new services that have not been listed in this section ?

· Do you have any suggestions to contribute to the further development of HIA's and handyperson services in Hampshire ?

Section THREE: PARTNERSHIPS AND COMMUNICATION

Summary of Section THREE

In this section we:

· Review the legal basis for partnership working between the Commissioning Body and the Administering Authority, in particular, the `Memorandum of Understanding'.

· With the aid of a flow chart, we describe the Supporting People decision making process at the County and District levels.

· Provide a definition of the groups involved in the decision making process.

· Outline the policy on ensuring effective communications between the various groups and agencies.

· SURG is the lead Service User body for Supporting People in Hampshire

· Consultation with Service Users is targeted at three levels, Strategic, Service and Personal.

· All key SP Policy documents are `SURG Approved'.

· The review timetable allows targeted consultation by SP Team and SURG.

· Detail the links that need to be made with relevant strategies at national and local levels.

· Provide additional information on linking with capital funding and the Hampshire Community Strategy.

3.1 Decision Making

The introduction of the SP programme represented a major change in the funding of housing related support services. Statutory bodies, Providers and Service Users assisted with the implementation and now work in partnership to ensure the delivery of an effective programme of support services.

Memorandum of Understanding

Partnership working lies at the heart of the programme. Decisions on funding are made by the inter agency County Core Group (CCG), (the Commissioning Body), with Hampshire County Council as the Administering Authority (AA).

Administering Authorities (AA's) are required by Direction 4 of the Supporting People Directions and Grant Conditions to approve a `Memorandum of Understanding' (MoU) which defines the relationship between the AA and CCG. This document must be formally accepted by the CCG.

As an `Excellent Authority', Hampshire is not required to abide by ODPM Grant Conditions, however a MoU has been adopted within the County under the terms of which it has been agreed that:

· The CB and AA will comply with the Directions and Grant Conditions as above, except where any variation is agreed by the CB and AA and is permissible under Central Government Regulations.

· The AA will comply with Grant Conditions issued by the Government when administering the Supporting People Grant.

3.2 The Decision Making Process

In Hampshire the Supporting People programme is overseen by the County Core Group and County Inclusive Forum. All decisions must be agreed by the four statutory partners:

· District and Borough Councils

· Hampshire County Council

· Probation

· Health

A "bottom up" decision making process though District Core Groups and Inclusive Forums has been adopted. See Appendix C

3.3 Decision Making Groups

District Inclusive Forum (DIF)

Meeting a minimum of twice yearly, this group brings together representatives of Providers and the statutory sector and acts as a consultative forum for the development of policy and proposals. Sub-groups may be commissioned on a task and finish basis.

District Core Group (DCG)

Meeting a minimum of four times a year, this group forms the local commissioning body, bringing together representatives from the statutory sector of Housing, Social Services, Health and Probation. In some districts the provider sector is represented by ROCC ensuring a wide breadth of experience is brought to bear in discussion and planning.

The group oversees the development and delivery of SP on a local basis, receives review reports and identifies local priorities.

District Core Groups have been meeting regularly since 2001 and have taken the lead in driving the Supporting People process, setting out work priorities, evaluating processes and overseeing the work of the Inclusive Forum and associated sub-groups.

County Inclusive Forum (CIF)

Chaired by ROCC, the CIF comprises representatives from each local inclusive forum in Hampshire and is charged with ensuring that the needs of all Client Group s are met on a Hampshire-wide basis, especially where demand may be insufficient within one authorities' area. Meeting quarterly, the group provides a forum where Providers may raise issues of concern and are consulted on the development of Hampshire wide policies and proposals including matters referred to the CCG. Additional meetings may be held as required to discuss particular concerns.

County Core Group (CCG)

Meeting quarterly this group comprises representatives from each District or Borough Council, The County Council, Health and Probation and has ultimate responsibility for agreeing the Hampshire-wide SP policy, strategy and implementation.

Cross Authority Group (CAG)

Chaired by ROCC, the Cross Authority Group consists of Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle Of Wight. A primary concern of the CAG is to address issues of common concern. For more information please refer to Section Eight.

3.4 Review Of Decision Making Structures

These constitutional arrangements have now been in place for some three years and have guided the `live' programme since April 2003. It is therefore appropriate to reassess their effectiveness in tackling the issues which have arisen in administering the programme to date.

The County Council Legal Services Department is reviewing the effectiveness and constitution of these structures. It is anticipated that a report will be submitted to the County Core Group in March 2005.

3.5 Communications

Following completion of the Year One activities and reviews an updated co-ordinated Communication Strategy was required to ensure efficient information sharing with all partner agencies and interest groups. An updated structure has therefore been developed incorporating three levels of communication which are outlined below. See Appendix D

Level One sets out the communications structure proposed with strategic partners, Health, Housing, Probation and Social Services.

Level Two sets out the communications structure proposed for stakeholders including ROCC, the Provider Reference Group and SURG which together represent a variety of interested parties.

· ROCC is a charitable organisation which supports Providers and other interested agencies in implementing Supporting People and represents their interests. Under Level Two of the Communications Strategy ROCC will be made aware of issues within the programme as they emerge.

· The Provider Reference Group meets quarterly to discuss topical issues relating to operational matters, particularly relating to the review process and contracting. Current membership consists of a representative cross section of SP Providers but all are welcome to attend.

· Service User Reference Group (SURG): Chaired by ROCC, this body meets on a bi-monthly basis and focuses on consulting and developing Supporting People policy issues. SURG is the key strategic body for overseeing Service User involvement processes in Hampshire. Membership is limited to 10 users of SP contracted services at any one time with every effort made to ensure that it is representative of all districts and SP Client Groups. A member of SURG reports to the quarterly County Core Group meetings giving Service Users an opportunity to express an opinion, in particular giving advice on policy development, consultation methods, and the quality of SP services.

3.6 Involving Service Users

A key role for SURG members is to learn about important SP issues, such as the review process and the commissioning of new services. Members then consult with their peers feeding back the results to the next meeting and agreeing a policy or process proposal.

The consultation may be with a tenant group, or those in a shared home, direct consultation with street homeless, to an established user or via a wider survey. The key to SURG working effectively is in maintaining a consistent membership throughout a year. This ensures members develop a good understanding of SP and the current key issues.

Meetings are split into 2 half day sessions; morning sessions normally include a presentation on a key policy issue (e.g. involving Service Users in the review process) from a member of the Hampshire SP team. SURG members will then debate the issues and draw up a response which is then taken back to their agreed consultation network and brought back to the following meeting for final drafting. The final document submitted to the CCG has the `SURG Approved' logo inserted across the top.

Training is provided during the second half of the day aimed at developing participation skills such as constructing and giving presentations, minuting or chairing meetings.

SURG achievements 2004

Policy Area	Approach	Policy Developed	CCG Approval
SP access to service user files	Consultation and discussion on access and confidentiality of support files.	Access Policy for SP Teams to Service User Files	Oct 2004
Hampshire SP Policy Framework	Consultation with peers and discussion on implications of Policy Framework	SURG approved version agreed in final tier of consultation	Submitted to December meeting
Consulting with Service Users in advance of service reviews	Develop a broad range of approaches to obtain Service Users' views on strategic relevance, quality , performance and value for money of services	Ongoing development of a policy for the SP Team to implement from April 2005	Submitting draft policy to the March 2005 meeting

Consultation

With a diverse range of Client Groups within the Supporting People Programme, meaningful involvement of Service Users presents a considerable challenge. A `one size fits all' approach cannot be adopted if a broad and robust user involvement programme is to be developed.

The SP approach is to develop policy on consultation at all levels through the Service User Reference Group (SURG) as set out above. All consultation is being undertaken across three key levels: The strategic, service and personal levels. For a detailed description please see Appendix E

Annual Plan: Service User Involvement

Action	Method	Target Date	Resources
Continue to develop SURG	Agree funding for 2005/6	Feb 2005	County Manager
Apply Policy on including SU's view gathered prior to review	SURG drafting policy document for CCG agreement	March 2005	SURG, SP Lead Coordinator.
Develop Process to include SU's in Strategic Reviews	SURG to develop policy when Strategic review process is published.	June 2005	SURG, SP Lead Coordinator
Review effectiveness of SURG	Meeting between SP, ROCC and SURG	January 2006	County Manger, SP Coordinator, ROCC, SURG

3.7 Links with the Wider Agenda

Supporting People stands alongside and links with government initiatives in the fields of crime reduction, homelessness, social care and health care. In meeting these objectives SP recognises a wide range of linked agendas and strategies which are listed in the table below.

Details on how SP links with them is contained in Section Six which details Client Group strategy statements.

Department of Health

National Level Strategies and Legislation

National Strategies for Mental Health - NSF

Joint Investment Plans

Drug and Alcohol Strategy

National Strategy for Carers

Valuing People

Teenage Pregnancy

Domestic Violence Strategy

Initiatives on:

_ Building Capacity and Partnership in Care

_ Quality and Choice, A Strategic Framework for Older People`s Housing

_ National Service Framework for Older Persons

_ National Strategy for Sexual Health

Three Year Plan : National Targets

1. Public Health Promotion

2. Long Term Managed Care

3. Access to services

Maintaining Independence -Engaging with People at Home

PCT Level

Primary Care Local Strategy

Locally Based Hospital Unit Strategy

Three Year Plan, Local Targets

Teenage Pregnancy

Local Strategy for Mental Health

County Level

Local Strategy for Mental Health

Teenage Pregnancy - Hampshire County Action Plan 2004 - 6

Supported Housing Commissioning Plan

Client Group Strategies

District Level

Client Group Strategies

Home Office

National Level Strategies and Legislation

Probation Strategy

Domestic Violence Strategy

Youth Justice Strategy

National Drugs Strategy -Tackling Drugs to build a better Britain 1998-2002

Reducing Re-Offending

County Level Strategies

Wessex Youth Offending Team Strategy 2004-2009

Drug and Alcohol Strategy

Domestic Violence Strategy

Youth Justice Strategy

District Level Strategies

Crime Reduction Strategy

ODPM

National Level Strategies and Legislation

Homelessness Act 2002

The Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation)(England ) Order 2002

Rough Sleepers Initiative

National Housing Statement

Regional Level

Regional Housing Strategy 2004/5 to 2005/6

County Level

Hampshire Community Strategy

Safer Communities Strategy

Hampshire Corporate Strategy

District Level

Community Strategy

Community Safety Strategy

Housing Strategies

Learning Disability Housing Strategy

Homelessness Strategies

Neighbourhood Renewal

Hampshire Drug Action Team Strategic Statement

Youth Strategy

Local SP Strategies

3.8 Capital Funding

Hampshire is to undertake Client Group focused strategic reviews with effect from April 2005. These may result in a decision to remodel the sector or require additional capital resources to fund the commissioning of new accommodation-based services. It is therefore important to retain a link with capital funding.

The principal sources of capital finance are:

· Regional Housing Board

· Housing Corporation

· Registered Social Landlords

Hampshire retains links with the sources of capital funding through the South East Regional Implementation Group (SERIG), The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Authorities Group (HIOWLA,) Local District Councils and the Senior Housing Officers Group (SHOG).

The following objectives currently identified by The Regional Housing Board are relevant to SP :

· To reduce homelessness and rough sleeping

· To support crime reduction through housing provision

· To meet the needs of those who require supported housing

· To meet the needs of black and minority ethnic people and asylum seekers

3.9 SP Links To The Hampshire Community Strategy

The Local Government Act 2000 placed a duty on the County to produce a Community Strategy to promote `social, economic and environmental well-being' of the area. Guidance requires that the strategy be prepared and delivered by a Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) involving representatives from the community, public, private and voluntary sector. Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Authorities (HIOWLA) elected members adopted a framework for developing strategies across the County to include strategies for Districts and a County Strategy.

The Hampshire Strategic Partnership is a multi-sector/multi-organisation partnership established in 2002 as the LSP for the County. With a steering group consisting of over 30 members, it oversees the development and implementation of the County Community Strategy.

HCC has been actively involved in the setting up of eleven LSPs across the Districts and will be a signatory to all Community Strategies. LSPs have been established locally, based upon district boundaries. District level strategies have been produced and links will be established by SP Coordinators with the LSPs where possible.

Key priorities identified within the Hampshire Community Plan relevant to SP are: tackling deprivation, reducing inequalities and improving accessibility. Please see Appendix F

Consultation has been undertaken with the LSP on the SP Policy Framework via the lead officers for the relevant key priorities. SP is working closely with the Community Strategy at a County level and will demonstrate where SP funding is helping to meet County objectives.

Consultation - Section THREE

1. As an excellent authority, should Hampshire retain the current working arrangements between the Commissioning Body and the Administrating Authority, in particular the `Memorandum of Understanding'?

2. Can we improve on the SP decision-making process at the County and District levels?

3. Does the improved communications structure adequately include all the various groups and agencies: is it too onerous ?

4. Can we improve involvement of Service Users?

5. Are the links clear and concise / relevant ?

6. Are there other funding sources we need to explore ?

Section FOUR: POLICY AND PREVENTION

Summary of Section FOUR

In this section we:

· Present the agreed Policy Framework for Supporting People in Hampshire for 2005-2010.

· Describe the role of the Prevention Statements which translate the Policy Framework into Client Group based Action Plans.

4.1 Introduction

SP interfaces with many agencies, strategies and interests. It is a programme based upon housing related support which contributes to the prevention agendas of Health, Housing, Probation and Social Services.

In order to clearly describe the nature and strategic direction of the programme, Hampshire has adopted the `Hampshire Supporting People Policy Framework'. This will provide a clear direction for the review and commissioning of all services.

The Policy Framework, Prevention Statements, strategic reviews and service reviews are all part of Hampshire's strategic approach to the commissioning of all SP services.

A detailed description of how this will work is contained in Section Eight

4.2 Hampshire Supporting People Policy Framework

This statement has been developed in consultation with strategic partners, Service Providers, Service Users and Elected Members.

Preventative Housing Related Support - A definition

Housing related support services provide short term early intervention that focuses on preventing homelessness and low level long term support, that will enable vulnerable individuals to live independently in their own homes.

Housing related support services are provided to develop, promote and sustain individuals to live independently or to gain access to appropriate accommodation.

The Supporting People Vision

Supporting People aims to implement policies and strategies that will make a real difference to peoples lives, to ensure that all people with support needs have the widest range of housing and support opportunities that can be provided.

Supporting People will give individuals choice to live in their own homes; it will be the responsibility of purchasers and Providers to deliver the required support. In order to achieve this Supporting People will work with strategic partners in Health, Housing, Probation, Social Services, Service Providers, Carers and Users.

Proposals for the expansion of existing services and the establishment of new ones will be developed within the following strategic framework:

a. Service Model - Supporting People will move to become less dependant on accommodation based responses to people's support needs by developing services that work flexibly wherever people choose to live.

b. Tenure - Services will be funded independently of the person's housing so that support can be provided to Service Users irrespective of whether they are tenants or owner-occupiers.

c. Quality - Supporting People will improve the quality of housing support services across the county.

d. Flexibility - Support will be more flexible and able to move with the individual when and where they move

e. Equality of Access to services - Supporting People will seek to provide a comprehensive range of services for all Client Groups wherever they are located within Hampshire.

In order to achieve the above, Hampshire contracts will wherever possible, move from being accommodation-based to being non-accommodation based and will measure capacity in hours of support rather than eligible Service Users. By these two means Service Providers will be able to use resources to the greatest effect.

Supporting People's Preventative Agenda

Supporting People works in partnership with other agencies to deliver part of a broad based preventative agenda. This aims to prevent adverse outcomes for individuals who are passing through points of crisis, change in their lives or require a lower level of support to avoid any crisis that may put their accommodation at risk.

1. Long and Short Term Services

Supporting People funds two distinct and complementary types of housing related support service:

Short term services

A short term service provides responsive housing related support that is outcome focused and measurable for a period of up to two years. The intensity of support is provided at various levels and based on the assessed needs of Service Users. Short term support is designed to assist individuals who are experiencing difficulties within their housing situation, are in transition from one living situation to another, are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. When a person moves into a new service the intensity of support required is higher than when they have been in a service for two years or more and are generally more settled.

Short term support services are designed to stabilise situations of crisis by providing appropriate levels of support. Such crises may occur more than once in a persons life and in that circumstance support can be made available again.

Short term services assist Service Users in developing the skills needed for independent living and will also aim to meet their broader needs by enabling access to other relevant services.

Long term services

A long term service provides low level housing related support for Service Users over a longer term which is delivered in a planned way. They can complement other services that enable individuals with support, care or other needs to live independently in their own homes.

Long term services provide support to Service Users whose needs are likely to increase over time or have ongoing health or learning difficulties. The range of support provided in long term services is essentially the same as that for short term services but with the focus on the successful maintenance of the individual's housing.

4.3 Prevention Statements

Based on the principles set out in the Policy Framework, a statement specific to each Client Group has been developed. Each of these Client Group Statements will define an agreed set of expectations on behalf of all partner agencies for SP funding, emphasising the potential benefits that the programme can have for each partner agency and their Service Users. They set out clearly the way in which Hampshire services will contribute to the preventative agendas of those Partners

SP expects all services to demonstrate that their work contributes to the Prevention Agenda, ensuring that Service Users and Partner Agencies are best served by the efficient and effective use of resources. Meetings have been held with strategic partners to discuss the approach and each of the Prevention Statements produced to date has been agreed by all Partners. The statements cover:

· Who is SP funding for

· How does SP help meet the priorities of Partner Agencies

· What will SP fund

· Resources

· Delivering SP services

Based upon these statements SP will aim to deliver high quality and strategically planned low level housing-related services as defined by the CCG. SP funded services will be cost effective and reliable, and compliment existing care services.

All user groups will be reviewed over the period of the Five Year Strategy. (Please see the Five Year Plan.)

To date Prevention Statements have been agreed for the following Client Groups :

A Learning Disabilities

Who Is SP funding for?

Housing related support services commissioned through SP are targeted towards vulnerable people in general, and this includes those with learning disabilities. Valuing People, the Government Strategy for People with Learning Disabilities, identifies over 1.4 million such people nationally. This includes 220,000 people with a severe learning disability and 1,200,000 people with a mild to moderate form of learning disability.

SP funding goes to services for people who need support to maintain their housing situation. The vast majority of people receiving SP services are living in social rented housing, with a minority living in private rented housing or owner occupiers. All are potential SP Service Users. It isn't usual, and generally we would not expect to fund services for people living with able carers in family situations.

SP funding is available to people who have care needs but only to fund the housing related support that they receive to maintain their homes. SP can and will only fund housing related support services for people who have direct housing responsibilities.

How does SP help meet the priorities of the Partner Agencies?

Supporting People services are working to prevent adverse outcomes for people with consequent demands on Health, Housing, Social Services and Probation.

The key objectives of the SP partnership are:

· Reducing the incidence of tenancy breakdown

· Promote more stable lifestyles

· Promote programmes of resettlement

· Reduce the number of crisis admissions to hospital

· Protect the most vulnerable in society from the damage of homelessness

Reduce the demand for more intensive support and care in Hampshire, a key SP objective is to ensure that all Service Users benefit from effective Housing and Support Panels. These Panels ensure that relevant stakeholders work together to bring about the best housing and support outcome for Service Users. They also provide valuable information on unmet need and demand and can help to achieve Valuing People's aspirations to expand choice in housing and support. SP services will assist the strategic housing authority in meeting its obligations and responsibilities to provide appropriate housing options for this Client Group.

Valuing People (VP) identifies that most people with Learning Disabilities live with their families. For many this could be because of the lack of options or opportunities to plan for people to move on. As stated SP does not generally fund people living with their families but funding can be targeted at those who need some form of support to maintain independent living in their own homes.

VP also notes that a persons options can be limited by "a conservatism in the development of housing options for people with Learning Disabilities, with authorities replicating current provisions rather than taking opportunities to broaden the range of housing available". SP seeks to broaden the spectrum of existing service provision available beyond purely accommodation-based services to also include new more flexible models of support. This can help people to access or maintain the most appropriate housing, provide them with more choice and options as to service provision and help ensure support is effectively targeted.

What will SP fund?

SP is a preventative programme. The housing related support services it funds are targeted at helping people avoid having to move into more intensively supported accommodation. In the case of people with learning disabilities, and other Service Users groups within the programme, SP funds low level housing related support to enable vulnerable people to maintain their tenancies, or their own homes if they are owner-occupiers.

Where people pay rent, the rent pays for general housing management. Where people have care needs these are funded through Health and Social Care as part of Community Care or other government funded programmes. People may have a number of other needs such as transport or day services, and there may be a number of activities that would be useful to them, such as numeracy or literacy classes, but these are not housing related support and therefore not within the funding criteria of SP.

Resources

The allocation of SP resources is decided on a strategic basis. This Prevention Statement is not intended to introduce eligibility criteria or a way of either increasing or decreasing the amount of money spent on any Client Group . At the time of the Learning Disability Strategic Review SP will be allocating around £9m or 31% of its budget on LD services. Any strategic change to that figure would be agreed though the County Core Group and not through Prevention Statements.

Delivering Supporting People Services

Supporting People expects all services to demonstrate that their work contributes to the agenda outlined in this statement. In this way we can ensure that Service Users and Partner Agencies are being best served by the efficient and effective use of resources.

B Homelessness

Who is SP Funding for?

Homelessness can affect anyone. SP funding is for those people who find themselves at risk of losing their home, or who have already become homeless, and who have a need for housing related support.

How does SP Help Meet the Priorities of the Partner Agencies?

SP services are working to prevent adverse outcomes for people, and where there may be consequent demands on Health, Housing, Social Services and Probation.

By assisting in the prevention of homelessness SP services will enable Local Health Authorities and services to ensure that the health inequalities that homeless people suffer are addressed. Additionally the provision of SP funded services to homeless people can reduce the need for crisis intervention and the pressure on a range of health services.

SP services assist the Strategic Housing Authority to meet its responsibilities to provide appropriate housing options for homeless people. The Homelessness Act 2002 highlights SP as a principal partner in the development and delivery of locally based preventative housing related support services. SP can develop and deliver a range of services that complement other preventative approaches to homelessness as part of the statutory responsibilities of housing authorities.

Increased homelessness directly leads to a greater burden being placed on Social Services through for example increased relationship breakdowns, child neglect, and deteriorating mental health. SP can assist Social Services Departments in reducing incidents of homelessness amongst their clients. The provision of housing related support services will allow further complementary care services to be delivered.

The provision of stable accommodation has been demonstrated to reduce re-offending rates by 20% (Social Exclusion Unit report "Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners" July 2002). A third of prisoners lose their accommodation whilst in prison and in many cases are considered "intentionally homeless" by the housing authority. Reducing incidents of re-offending is the key strategic target of the Probation service and Youth Offending Teams at local and national levels. SP services help deliver this.

The key objectives of the SP partnership are:

· Reducing the incidence of tenancy breakdown

· Promote more stable lifestyles

· Promote programmes of resettlement

· Reduce the number of crisis admissions to hospital

· Protect the most vulnerable in society from the damage of homelessness

· Reduce the demand for more intensive support and care

What will SP fund?

SP is a preventative programme that funds preventative support in accommodation and non accommodation based services. SP funding for homeless people is targeted at preventing people losing their home and becoming homeless in the first place, and preventing people from moving into situations of prolonged or repeat homelessness.

SP funds a range of short term housing related support services to meet the particular housing related support needs of Service Users in varying situations.

SP is not involved in the provision of accommodation. Emergency accommodation is the statutory duty of the housing authority for those assessed as being a priority. Access to general needs housing is normally through the local housing register.

Resources

The allocation of SP resources is decided on a strategic basis, this Prevention Statement is not intended to introduce eligibility criteria or a way of either increasing or decreasing the amount of money spent on any Client Group.

In addition to services focused on the needs of specific Client Groups, SP also funds a range of services that are generic and therefore may or may not be addressing homelessness as their primary purpose but contribute to homelessness prevention.

Delivering Supporting People Services

Supporting People expects all services to demonstrate that their work contributes to the agenda outlined in this statement. All SP services are expected to have clearly identified objectives and means of measuring outcomes. In this way we can ensure that Service Users and Partner Agencies are being best served by the efficient and effective use of resources.

Consultation - Section FOUR

1. Do you think the emphasis on prevention is correct?

2. Should there be a different funding structure for long and short term services?

3. Do you agree with the concept of Prevention Statements ?

4. Should we include Prevention Statements for all SP Client Groups within this section ?

5. Is there anything else you would like to see contained within the Prevention Statement ?

Section FIVE : DATA ANALYSIS

Summary of Section FIVE

In this section we:

· Present an analysis of supply data that is now available to the SP team.

· Detail the annual spend according to Client Group.

· Detail the capacity of services according to Client Group

· Provide a profile of SP service models.

· Show the distribution of SP funding according to District Council area.

· Address Cross Authority issues.

· Profile Service Providers and contracts.

· Summarise the conclusions of needs analysis.

· Describe the role and function of Prevention Service Grids

5.1 Analysis of Supply of Services

A detailed analysis of the supply and spend has been undertaken, a full range of tables is to be found at Appendix G. Details include capacity, spend, service type and average weekly cost as at 31 March 2004. The figures shown relate to actual spend for 2003/4. Total spend for the period was £33.28m accounting for services provided to over 19,000 Service Users. The full analysis contained within Appendix G is broken down into accommodation-based and non-accommodation based services.

Spend By Service User Group

The diagram overleaf indicates the distribution of spending in the period 2003/4 by Primary Client Group as defined by ODPM:

Capacity by Service User Group

The diagram below indicates the capacity in the period 2003/4 by Primary Client Group as defined by ODPM:

The graph clearly indicates that the majority of provision is for older people with support needs followed by generic services. A second graph has been prepared excluding services for older persons and generic services in order to illustrate the lower capacities relating to other client groups. See Appendix H ( Capacity under 1000 Units)

Service Model Profile

Accommodation-based services represented 79.4 percent (£26.42m) of total County SP spend and 70.6 (13422) percent of total Service Users.

Non-accommodation based services represented 20.6 percent (£6.8m) of total county SP spend and 29.4 (5591) percent of Service Users.

The largest proportion of spend was accounted for by accommodation-based services for People with Learning Disabilities at 31.76 percent (£10.5m) of spend with a Service User base of 3.83 percent (729) of the total number of Service Users.

The category with the largest number of Service Users was accommodation-based services for Older People with Support Needs at 54.44 percent (10350), representing 15.95 percent (£5.3m) of the County SP spend.

Services for Refugees represented both the lowest SP spend and Client Group numbers. Accommodation-based services for this Client Group accounted for 0.04 percent (8) of total Service Users and 0.05 percent (£16k) of total County SP spend.

5.2Distribution of Hampshire Spending by District

For a full analysis see : Appendix G

5.3 The Cross Authority Picture

Hampshire, along with Portsmouth, Southampton, and the Isle of Wight is a member of the South Central Cross Authority Group (CAG). Matters of concern involving these four authorities are dealt with by the CAG but in the wider context, Cross Authority issues are dealt with bi-laterally with the authority in question. Designated Cross Authority Services include all services for Women Fleeing Domestic Violence and one Offenders service provided by the Langley House Trust.

For more detail on the agreed Cross Authority Statement and an evaluation of the current issues regarding Homeless services refer to Section Eight

5.4 Provider Profile

Hampshire currently contracts with a total of 142 Providers. The majority of Providers (77.6 %) work with only one Client Group, 9% work 2 Client Groups, 7% with 3 and 6 % with a wider range.

The tables below provide an overview:

Provider Types	Totals
Private sector	47
Statutory sector	11
RSL / voluntary sector	84

Spend by Provider Type	Spend
Private sector	£2,183,520.32
Statutory sector	£4,613,632.33
RSL / Voluntary sector	£26,315,091.16

Contract Values Range	Number of contracts in range (Total value of all contracts with Provider)
Under £10,000	26
£10,000 - £20,000	13
£20,000 - £50,000	30
£50,000 - £100,000	19
£100,000 - £250,000	17
£250,000 - £500,000	21
£500,000 - £1,000,000	11
£1,000,000 +	7

Small Providers

Hampshire SP wish to ensure that the administrative and monitoring processes imposed on Small Providers take into account the size of the Provider whilst ensuring adequate protection for Service Users and the Administering Authority. A light touch has been adopted in relation to performance monitoring returns and Quality Assessment Forms and service review. A definition has been developed to identify Providers who can be classed as `small'. On the basis of the above it is estimated that 47 Providers of 51 separate services would fall into this category.

See Appendix I

5.5 Changing Pattern of Provision

The picture of provision is largely stable. Minor changes include the withdrawal from SP of two Small Providers whose service was not strategically relevant. Planned changes in the pattern of provision will be implemented through the strategic reviews.

5.6 Needs Analysis

Independent needs analysis research was commissioned by Hampshire SP in January 2004.

Stage One of the project, consisted of a `desktop' review involving collection and review of existing data relating to the housing and support needs of the Client Groups defined by ODPM, supplemented by telephone discussion with the key informants. In April 2004 an interim paper reported on Stage One findings.

Additional more detailed work was subsequently commissioned into four areas of prime concern:

· Homeless Families and Single Homeless People with Support Needs

· People with complex needs, including mental health problems, substance misuse and offenders

· Teenage Parents aged 16 and 17

· Young offenders

These areas were selected on the following basis :

· Results of interim needs research

· Client Groups represented fell within the National and County Steer

· Groups identified were not the subject of statutory responsibility of any other department

· Hampshire supply profile

· The paucity of information on the selected Client Groups

· All Client Groups selected were recognised as priority needs by the Districts.

Stage Two involved primary research; collecting new data and in-house information held by Providers, specialist teams and statutory authorities.

The conclusions reached provided indications relating to the wider picture and were thematic rather than Client Group oriented.

The report established a lack of linkage between the data sets held by various authorities and agencies, lack of aggregated information on housing circumstances and sources of support which together made quantification of needs impossible.

The approach adopted therefore:

· Identified the types of needs not currently being met

· Highlighted the barriers to delivering effective services

· Suggested practical ways forward

Conclusions of Independent Research

No.	Conclusion
1	There is a need for still further research on gaps in services
2	Despite a recent increase in the provision of generic floating support there is a continued demand for further expansion across several Client Groups
3	There is a need for additional low level housing related support for young offenders and Young People at Risk
4	Lack of housing remains an issue, leading to silt-up
5	There is currently a gap in short term specialist housing support offering 24 hour cover, especially for people with complex needs.
6	Providers are concerned that referrals are made with insufficient information relating to the needs of the prospective service user leading in some cases to difficulties in the placement

These conclusions will be further explored and addressed appropriately within the strategic reviews.

For full report see: http://www.hants.gov.uk/housingsupport/speople.html

5.7 Prevention Services Grids' (PSGs)'

In examining the supply of SP services throughout the county, `Prevention Services Grids' (PSG's) have been developed to clearly identify the gaps in existing provision. Grids have been completed for each District and have been aggregated to present a County-wide picture. In completing each grid the question being answered is: "Do people in this area have access to the types of service indicated?". See Appendix J

The completed grid identifies gaps in service provision indicating where new services may be required or commissioned over the next five years. Evidence of demand opportunity, viability, value for money and compliance with policy directives will be required to support any development proposal. The existence of a Planning System has also been assessed. The information obtained from these grids will be used to inform strategic reviews. The categories of service model considered include: floating support, emergency short stay, general needs accommodation, HIA and supported lodgings

Locally Identified Priorities

Local priorities were identified prior to the completion of the needs analysis and Prevention Services Grids but they nevertheless remain relevant as they present a clear picture of perceived need at the local level. See Section SIX

Consultation - Section FIVE

1. Do you come to any conclusions about the supply of services not covered in the commentary?

2. Which services would you like to see continue to be accommodation-based? (See Policy Framework)

3. Do you think we should maintain a diversity of Service Providers or attempt to achieve better value for money through economies of scale?

4. Do the conclusions of the needs analysis support your views of unmet need or do you have other information ?

5. Do you think the idea of PSG's provides a solid base for the discussion of gap and needs analysis ?

Section SIX: THE COMMISSIONING PROCESS

Summary of Section SIX

In this section we:

· Describe the methodology by which we will prioritise existing proposals for new services in 2005-6

· Describe how the prioritisation of proposals for new services will be accomplished through the strategic review process also in this section

· Detail a needs statement for each Client Group within the SP programme based on Preventions Service Grids, needs analysis and existing priorities.

6.1 Prioritising New Services

New Services 2005-6

The Shadow Strategy 2003-4 identified a number of priorities that had been discussed and agreed by the District Inclusive Forum and the County Inclusive Forum. Although formally agreed at a local level, these priorities are now being subjected to scrutiny according to five criteria. These are:

· Evidence - is there an established evidenced need for this service that cannot be met by the alternatives available?

· Opportunity - is there an opportunity to develop the scheme or service in the area it is required at this time?

· Viability - will the service be financially viable throughout its intended duration, or will it need other funding sources which have not yet been identified?

· Value - does the intended service achieve wanted outcomes for people at a cost effective and affordable price?

· Policy - is the proposed new service in-line with the Policy Framework as outlined in section four of this five year strategy?

The result of this work will be presented to the County Core Group for a County level priortisation in Summer 2005 in preparation for any additional funding that may be available thereafter. The potential services given priority are listed in the box below:


Locally Identified Priorities
District	Type of Service
Basingstoke	1 Floating support / Domestic Violence 2 Floating support / Young People (including teenage parents) 3 Floating support / Older persons with support needs 4 Accommodation based / Learning Disabilities & Physical /sensory disabilities.
Eastleigh	1. Accommodation based or Floating Support / Teenage parents 2. Disability Accommodation and Advice worker 3. Floating support / Learning Disabilities 4. Accommodation based (24 hour Support) Mental Health Problems
East Hants	1. Floating support /Young Persons at risk 2. Floating support Ex Offenders 3. Floating support Women fleeing Domestic Violence 4. Accommodation based /Single Homeless, ex-offenders, substance misuse
Havant	1. Floating support / Young Persons at risk 2. Floating support / Generic 3. Floating support / DV 4. Accommodation based service / Homeless / ex offenders / Substance misuse
Fareham & Gosport	1. Accommodation based / Young Persons (Emergency and Advice Scheme) / 1a : (Gosport Only) Extra care sheltered accommodation 2. Accommodation based / Dual Diagnosis Service 3. Enhancement of the Domestic Violence Support Service 4. Floating support /Substance Misuse
Hart & Rushmoor	1. Floating support / ex-offenders and young people at risk of offending 2. Floating support /non-diagnosed mental health problems 3. Floating support / older people with support needs 4. Extra care sheltered accommodation
New Forest	1. Accommodation based service / Mental Health 2. Floating support / Substance Misuse
Test Valley	1. Accommodation based service/ ex-offenders 2. Extra care sheltered accommodation
Winchester	1. Accommodation based service / dual diagnosis and substance misuse issues

New Services 2006-7 and Beyond

In subsequent years, priorities for investment will be developed by the prevention statement and strategic review process as outlined in Section Eight.

6.2 Client Group Supply and Needs Statements

A. Homelessness

Related Strategies - how SP links in

· Homelessness Act (2002)

· Regional Housing Strategy 2004/5 to 2005/6

· District and Borough Homelessness Strategies

· District and Borough Housing Strategies

The Homelessness Act (2002) identifies SP as a key partner in developing preventative services for people who may become homeless and supported housing for those who have, The Regional Housing Strategy and local Homelessness and Housing Strategies reflect this. Homelessness Strategies identify SP services as delivering a significant part of provision.

What Supporting People can do

SP can fund a range of services to meet the varying needs of individuals facing homelessness and those who are already homeless. This may include tenancy sustainment services, direct access hostels and night shelters, short term supported housing for single people and families and supported lodgings. SP can also meet the agendas of our strategic partners by;

· Reducing the incidence of tenancy breakdown

· Promoting more stable lifestyles

· Promoting programmes of resettlement

· Reducing the number of crisis admissions to hospital

· Protecting the most vulnerable people from the damage of homelessness

· Reducing the demand for more intensive support and care

Gaps in Supply

Three local authority areas do not have emergency short stay accommodation for Single Homeless people and four do not for Homeless Families. Whilst there are generic floating support services in all areas there is insufficient information to determine the extent to which they address the strategic priorities outlined in LA Homelessness Strategies.

Action Plan

	Action	Timetable	Lead Officer
1	Undertake Strategic Review	2005/6	SP Team
2	Implement through service review.	2006/7	SP Team
3	Ensure all homeless hostels and shelters are designated cross authority.	2005	SP Team
4	Ensure people have access to appropriate services	2006/7	SP Team

B. Learning Disabilities

Related Strategies - how SP links in

· Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21^st Century (DoH 2001)

A key emphasis within this White Paper is on the development of a wider range of housing and support options for Service Users, including shared ownership, small-scale ordinary housing, and a more strategic approach to service planning and commissioning . These aspirations are wholly consistent with the Supporting People programme in its objective of developing and sustaining the independence of vulnerable people living in the community through the provision of a wider choice of flexible and responsive housing related support services.

What Supporting People can do

Through its active partnership involvement in the county's Locality Implementation Groups and joint working with the Hampshire Learning Disability Partnership Board, the Supporting People Programme can make a contribution to the delivery of the housing and support agenda in respect of this Client Group, in particular the following areas:

· Transition of younger adults with learning disabilities to independent living, enabling people to build on the skills developed through educational services they have accessed.

· Re-settlement opportunities for people to enable them to live independently and closer to their family home.

· Responding to Service Users experiencing crisis and the threat of homelessness.

· Responding to users' housing related support needs as identified through Person Centred Planning.

· Inform local housing allocation processes of the housing need in each locality in respect of people with learning disabilities.

· Easing the pressure on older carers in enabling them to continue living independently through provision of housing related support solutions to their children.

There remains the need to recognise the multiple funded nature of independent living service provision for this Client Group, and the budgetary constraints that exist in respect of both the programme and its partner agencies to ensure that opportunities for people can be developed in a sustainable manner.

Gaps in Supply

The desired model of housing related service provision amongst people with learning disabilities is increasingly being made clear the Person Centred Planning Process: People with learning disabilities want to be able to live in their own homes, often of progressively smaller unit size, including self-contained supported accommodation, with support. This generates a key need for increased floating / visiting support capacity within the programme to enable the delivery of these kinds of living environments. Throughout the county there is additionally limited provision to respond to the needs of people with learning disability who require emergency accommodation.

Action Plan

	Action	Timetable	Lead Officer
1	Undertake strategic review of LD services	2006	Local Co-ordinators
2	Implement the outcomes of the strategic review through subsequent individual service reviews	2006-7	Local Co-ordinators & Service Providers
3	Establish systematic service user representation through the Hants SP SURG process.	2005	Local Co-ordinators
4	Encouragement of all Providers to implement Reach Standards within SP Funded services.	Ongoing	Hants SP Team & Service Providers
5.	Ongoing involvement in LIG planning structures and those associated with the Hampshire Learning Disability Partnership Board	Ongoing	Local Co-ordinators and SP Learning Disability Lead Officer.

C. Mental Health

Related Strategies - How SP links in

· The National Service Framework (NSF) for Mental Health 1999

· HCC SSD Commissioning Plan, 1999-2004

· The HCC Best Value Improvement Plan 2003 for MH Services

· Report by ROCC on Housing Needs and Mental Health 1998

The NSF does not specifically address housing and support for Mental Health Service Users, except to say that 24 hour supported accommodation should be available in each locality.

The County Commissioning Plan states that: `the main areas of development of social care will continue to be in employment and housing as well as a focus on recognizing the needs of carers'.

The Best Value Improvement Plan proposed `the development of a range of residential care and housing with support in each locality informed by the needs analysis in the ROCC report and improving housing practice in mental health services through joint training'.

What Supporting People Can Do

Through many mechanisms, including the DIF's, DCG's and CCG, SP links in with the housing and support related objectives in the above documents. A local coordinator in the SP Team is a member of the HCC County Mental Health Housing Strategy Group looking at how proposals contained in the Best Value Improvement Plan will be delivered. Local coordinators attend the various Locality Implementation Team meetings.

Gaps in Supply

No obvious gaps exist in the supply of services funded by SP for Mental Health Service Users, but generally, intelligence from stakeholders indicates that the issue of concern is that there is an insufficient quantity of services.

Action Plan

	Action	Timetable	Lead Officer
1	Undertake Strategic Review	2006	Local Coordinators
2	Implement outcomes through service reviews	2007	Local Coordinators
3	Continue to liaise with colleagues in Health, SSD and Housing to inform and be informed regarding housing and support needs for this Client Group	Ongoing	Lead Coordinator

D. Offenders

Related Strategies - how SP links in:

· Supporting People, Guidance for the National Offender Management Service

· Tackling Drugs: Changing Lives

· Violence Against Women Initiative

· Reducing Re-offending (Home Office National Action Plan)

· Public Protection and Community Safety, Approved Premises and Offender Housing Strategy For Higher Risk Offender

Home Office research demonstrates a significant factor in preventing offenders from re-offending is a stable home. Suitable supported housing provides the base from which offenders can engage in programmes of supervision, gain employment and training and become part of the community. Housing is at a premium for all groups of people with the cost of home ownership soaring out of more people's reach, relationship breakdown creating a greater demand for housing, social housing stock reducing through right to buy and homelessness rising. Finding suitable supported accommodation for less popular groups such as offenders and returning prisoners becomes an increasingly difficult task with up to 55%, in some areas, of returning prisoners not having a home to return to on release from custody.

Home Office Information

· A homeless prisoner is twice as likely to re-offend as one with a stable home.

· 32% of prisoners are homeless at the time of being taken into custody.

· Nationally up to 55% of prisoners have no stable home to return to.

· Offenders in the community, and who are subject to community based punishments, are significantly more likely to complete their programme of supervision if they live in stable supported accommodation.

· Up to a quarter of offenders living nationally do not have permanent stable accommodation.

· Only a quarter of those people `living with friends' are in employment.

· Offenders with an established address enable the Police and the Probation services to monitor the behaviour of offenders.

What Supporting People can do

Supporting People can intervene in preventing homelessness by offering housing related support to ex-offenders either in their current or new accommodation.

A floating support service directed towards offenders would focus on five key areas

1. Advice, assistance and advocacy with welfare benefits

2. Advice and advocacy on issues such as access to health and community care

3. Practical assistance with moving into new accommodation or improving their current accommodation

4. Referrals to specialist agencies such as drug/ alcohol or Social Services

5. Advice and guidance on budgeting, cooking and cleaning.

Gaps in Supply

Offenders in Hampshire currently have only 0.88% of specialist supported housing and 2.3% of the total Supporting People funding. There is a significant demand for housing related support from ex-offenders.

The outcomes for the community, if ex-offenders are successfully supported in the community, are significant: a reduction in re-offending, a safer community and the successful re-integration of individuals into the community.

Action Plan

	Action	Timetable	Lead Officer
1	Reformatting of HAAS	By April 2005	PR
2	Integration of offender services and expansion of current provision	2008/9	SP team

E. Older People

Related Strategies - how SP fits in

Current research has consistently shown that older people have a strong wish to continue to live in their own homes.

This view is reflected in both the National Service Framework for Older People standards and in the Central Government target;

`to improve the quality of life and independence of vulnerable older people by supporting them to live in their own homes where possible by

· Increasing the proportion of older people being supported to live in their own home annually in 2007 and 2008

· Increasing, by 2008, the proportion of those supported intensively to live at home to 34% of the total of those being supported at home or in residential care.'

Research has also shown that older homeless people can be successfully resettled and that such interventions can have cost-benefits, meet Best Value Principles and save public money.

This is totally in line with the SP preventative programme. In developing the Five Year Strategy, SP and Strategic Partners can influence and manage the local market, encouraging existing and new Providers to provide for the needs of older people.

What Supporting People can do

Home Improvement Agencies play a key role in enabling older people remain in their own homes by assisting them to get the repairs and adaptations needed. All eleven Boroughs and Districts in Hampshire now have active joint funded Home Improvement Agencies.

It is recognised that although living in a safe, adapted property goes a long way towards enabling older people to live in their own homes, some individuals may also need some form of housing related support.

Community Alarms provide many individuals with a cost effective and unobtrusive way of receiving a low level support service.

For those who need additional support, particularly at times of crisis or transition, there is at least one floating support service in all eleven Boroughs and Districts that older people can access and which would focus on three key areas:

1. Advice, assistance and advocacy with welfare benefits

2. Practical assistance with moving into new accommodation or improving their current accommodation

3. Referrals to specialist agencies such as HIA, Health or Social Services

Some older people will chose to move into sheltered housing where support would normally be provided by the scheme manager and an alarm service.

Gaps in Supply

It is often said that there is an overprovision of sheltered housing, evidenced by the difficulty that many Providers face in filling vacancies. Our view is that this is not necessarily the case. Where sheltered housing is modern, well located, and accessible it is popular. Where it is old fashioned, with shared toilets, bathrooms and kitchens, badly located and inaccessible, services, are not popular.

Around the County, through service reviews, SP may find that there are many sheltered housing services which are unpopular for all or some of the reasons outlined above. SP also accepts the professional and ethical argument that Supporting People funding should not continue to fund services that Service Users find unacceptable.

SP therefore propose to develop a set of minimum standards for all sheltered housing that is to remain within the SP programme and establish a five year time frame during which all services will aim to come within the standard. Services outside of acceptability will not have contracts renewed after April 2010.

A major issue for partner agencies, and many Service Users, is the lack of appropriate accommodation for older people leaving hospital. Sheltered housing can make a considerable contribution through provision of extra care. Supporting People will contribute to the Health and Social Care agenda by ensuring that the capacity of fully accessible sheltered housing is used to help meet the extra care provision needed in the county.

Action Plan

	Action	Timetable	Lead Officer
1	Undertake Strategic Review	Complete by April 2008	SP Team
2	Establish and agree minimum standards for all sheltered housing	November 2004	Alan Hagger
3	Review all sheltered housing against criteria	April 2010	SP Team
4	Identify sheltered housing schemes with the potential to provide extra care services.	November 2004	SP Team
5	Align with hospital discharge and other issues	November 2004	Alan Hagger

F. Physical Disabilities and Sensory Loss

Related Strategies - How SP links in

The NSF for Long Term Conditions does not set standards in other government departments' areas such as housing, however it does highlight relevant issues emerging from the NSF development process.

A key emphasis within the Hampshire SSD Commissioning Plan for Physical Disabilities and Sensory Services is promoting independence. Priorities for this Client Group include adapted and adaptable housing.

What Supporting People can do

People with physical disabilities and sensory impairments should have choice in accessing housing and support services to meet their individual needs throughout their lifetime, through all tenures and usual routes into housing, within their own communities.

SP is committed to ensuring that people with disabilities have access to good quality comprehensive information about housing opportunities and housing related support services. A pilot scheme is underway in Basingstoke, Eastleigh and Test Valley to compile a register of adapted properties to ensure that these are reallocated to people with disabilities on the housing register, enabling a better use of resources.

Gaps in Supply

This user group has only 0.23% of specialist supported housing and 0.68% of the total SP funding. SP can prevent homelessness or a move to institutional accommodation by offering support to people in their homes. There is one floating support service in all 11 boroughs and districts that can be accessed that focuses on four key areas:

· Advice, assistance and advocacy with welfare benefits

· Practical assistance with moving into new accommodation or improving their current accommodation

· Referrals to specialist agencies such as Health or Social Services

· Advice and guidance on budgeting and life skills.

Action Plan

	Action	Timetable	Lead Officer
1	Undertake Strategic Review of All SP funded services people with physical disabilities and sensory loss	By April 2010	Local Coordinators
2	Ensure that all people with disabilities and sensory loss have access to housing support services.	By April 2010	Local Coordinators
3	Ensure that people with disabilities and sensory loss have access to information on supported housing or housing related support services.	By April 2010	Lead Coordinator

G. Substance Misuse

Related Strategies - how SP links in

· National Drugs Strategy

· Hampshire DAAT Strategic Statement 2004 - 2007

· Community Safety Partnership Strategies and action plans.

What Supporting People can do

Through the provision of supported accommodation and low level housing related floating support services, SP can compliment the work of more specialist treatment and rehabilitative services. In doing so it can assist in reducing dependency and enable more settled patterns of living

Gaps in Supply

Whilst most areas in Hampshire indicate that there are services for people who misuse substances these are in the main primarily homelessness services that individuals may access through other routes.

Action Plan

	Action	Timetable	Lead Officer
1	Undertake Strategic Review of services for people who misuse substances.	2006/7	Local Co-ordinators
2	Implement the outcomes of strategic reviews through service review process.	2007/8	Local Co-ordinators

H. Women Fleeing Domestic Violence

Related Strategies - how SP links in :

· Safety and Justice: The Government's Proposal on Domestic Violence (Home Office 2003)

· Local Authority Homelessness Strategies

· Local Authority Community Safety Strategies

The SP Guide to Accommodation and Support Options for Households Experiencing Domestic Violence. (ODPM 2002) describes the role of SP in the approach to domestic violence as set out in the Government's Proposal

What Supporting People Can Do

Through a variety of mechanisms, including the District Inclusive Forums, District and County Core Groups, Supporting People links in with the housing and support related objectives contained in the above documents. Local Coordinators in the Supporting People Team are members of most Domestic Violence Forums in Hampshire.

Gaps in Supply

There are women's refuges in all districts and boroughs in Hampshire. Housing-related support in refuges is funded through SP.

Specialist floating support for women experiencing domestic violence is notably absent from two of the districts/boroughs (Hart and Rushmoor) and in some districts the specialist floating support/outreach services are not funded by Supporting People but through the Local Authority (e.g. Basingstoke), or through alliances with several organisations. Some districts have very little outreach - e.g. in East Hants there is only five hours a week of this type of support.

Action Plan

	Action	Timetable	Lead Officer
1	Undertake Strategic Review of all SP funded services for DV	By April 2007	Local Coordinators
2	Implement the outcomes of the Strategic Review through local service reviews	By April 2008	Local Coordinators
3	Continue to liaise with colleagues in Local Authorities, Health and Social Services to inform and be informed regarding housing and support needs for this Client Group	Ongoing	Lead Coordinator

I. Young People

Related strategies - how Supporting People links in

Supporting People can make a positive contribution in assisting Partner Agencies in delivering objectives within the following strategies:

_ Youth Justice Strategy/YOTS strategy

_ Quality Protects

_ Homelessness Act 2002

_ The Children Leaving Care Act 2000

_ Teenage Pregnancy Strategy

What Supporting People can do?

There is a clear link between inadequate housing and incidents of re-offending and Supporting People can have a positive impact by providing floating support and tenancy support services to prevent incidents of homelessness for Young Offenders. In addition to this Supporting People funds specific accommodation based services to work with Young Offenders on addressing their housing related support needs.

The Quality Protects Programme is a key part of the Government's wider strategy for tackling social exclusion. It focuses on working with some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable children in our society. Those children looked after by councils; in the child protection system; and other children in need. Supporting People can contribute to the Quality Protects programme by ensuring that Young People can access Supported Housing and eventually more permanent housing with attached Floating Support. Floating Support services can help ensure that families maintain their existing housing and are therefore better placed to receive specialist complementary services funded by our statutory partners.

The Homelessness Act 2002 places a duty on local authorities to accept homeless 16 and 17 year olds as being in priority need without having to demonstrate vulnerability. Supporting People services can work with 16 and 17 year olds in either accommodation based services or Floating Support. The provision of floating support services to people at risk of homelessness will prevent tenancy failure and contribute to delivering the local housing authorities strategy of reducing the numbers of people living in temporary accommodation.

SP currently funds accommodation based services for Vulnerable Young People. These services can be accessed by all Young People who require these services although Social Services retain the financial responsibility for funding the placement of Young People to whom they have a statutory responsibility.

Floating support services can provide support to Teenage Parents to ensure they are able to maintain their accommodation. Supporting People also funds accommodation based services for Teenage Parents.

Gaps in Supply

There is a lack of emergency short term accommodation for Young People around the County. Many districts do not have 24 hour staffed accommodation based services specifically for Young People. Young People (16/17 year olds) are currently excluded from many accommodation based services around the County.

Action Plan

	Action	Timetable	Lead Officer
1	Undertake strategic review of Young People services	2006/7	Local Co-ordinators
2	Implement the outcomes of strategic reviews through service review process	2007/8	Local Co-ordinators
3	Meet with Providers and other stakeholders to review the policy of excluding 16/17 year olds from some accommodation based services	2005	Lead Co-ordinator
4	Research the effectiveness of generic floating support in meeting the needs of teenage parents	2005	SP Team

Consultation - Section SIX

1. Do you accept the criteria we are using for prioritising existing bids?

2. Do you have any comments on any of the Client Group Statements?

3. Do you think that we should continue to consider previous priorities for new development outside of the strategic review process?

Section SEVEN: MONITORING AND REVIEWS

Summary of Section SEVEN

In this section we:

· Explain how ongoing performance and quality is monitored

· Outline the review methodology

· Report on progress to date and outcomes

· Set out the way in which Hampshire SP tackles issues arising from reviews though setting of objectives, timescales and ongoing monitoring.

· Map out the future of the review process in the light of the introduction of the strategic reviews.

7.1 Monitoring

Performance

The performance of all contracted services is monitored on a quarterly basis through the submission and analysis of performance returns (PI's). These measure service availability, utilisation, and staffing as a percentage of that contracted for. All services are expected to meet the following targets:

· Availability 100%,

· Utilisation 90%,

· Staffing 95%.

Where performance falls below these standards, Providers are initially given an opportunity to improve. Failing that, a contract default notice is served. In a small number of cases where improvements have not been forthcoming, reductions have been negotiated to the contract. Performance information is uplifted to ODPM on a quarterly basis. From January 2005, targeted audit visits will be made to services to check and improve the accuracy of PI returns.

Quality

A key aspect of the introduction of the Supporting People programme is the aim of improving the quality of housing related support services by way of the annual completion of the Quality Assessment Framework (QAF) for each service. Six core objectives are currently self assessed by Providers and the eleven supplementary objectives will gradually be introduced from 2005.

Action plans are requested from services where their own, or the SP team's assessment does not meet the minimum level required, and the implementation of these plans is monitored.

As with performance information, self assessment and SP team assessment scores for the QAF are uplifted to ODPM on a quarterly basis.

7.2 Service Review Methodology

In line with ODPM requirements Hampshire SP have developed a review timetable to enable all funded services to be reviewed by 31^st March 2006. To assist service Providers in adapting their processes to the new SP regime, the timetable for the first round of service reviews was Provider based.

Apart from one large Provider with whom the process was piloted in the first quarter of 2003, other Service Providers included in the first year's programme were selected on a risk basis. Following guidance issued by the ODPM, a detailed review methodology has been developed which examines the following aspects of each funded service:

1. Strategic Relevance - this determines whether the service fits the overall objectives of the SP programme and conforms with objectives identified in the local SP strategy.

2. Current & Future Demand - aims to identify those services where there is evidence either of low demand at the present time, or due to foreseeable changes this is likely to occur in the near future.

3. Quality - by means of the self assessment form (the Quality Assessment Framework) backed up by targeted visits to validate returns. Services failing to meet a number of minimum standards are identified.

4. Performance - three aspects of performance are monitored on an ongoing basis; service availability, utilisation, and staffing, acceptable standards are set for each. This information can used to calculate hourly rates, demand and contract compliance.

5. Cost Effectiveness - assessed by two methods; by cost per hour of support delivered, (a maximum of £20 is considered reasonable) and on a Client Group and service type basis by reference to the upper quartile cost of all similar services in the SE Region. (Appendix K) Overriding these two conditions, consideration is given to allowing discretion in exceptional circumstances on a case by case basis.

7.3 Service Review Process

To ensure that Service Providers understood the process, a series of day long workshops was run in six locations around the county. Notification of the forthcoming reviews and a summary of the process is sent out six weeks before the commencement of the review, and detailed guidance four weeks before.

After each aspect of the service has been examined, any concerns identified during the course of the review will be addressed by the introduction of individual action plans, mainly relating to issues of quality and performance. Action plans set clear objectives and specify timescales in which they are to be achieved. Monitoring of these action plans is ongoing. Review reports are issued in respect of each service, summarising the outcome of each part of the review and drawing attention to any action required.

7.4 Progress to Date

During the course of the first year of the programme 241 services provided by 44 separate Providers were included in the review programme. Of these 51% (124) provided services for people with learning disabilities, 15% (37) for people with mental health problems, and 6% (14) for young people at risk. The remaining services 66 services reviewed were spread across all other Client Groups, with all of these being less than 5% of the total.

All reviews programmed to be undertaken during this year (2003/04) were carried out as scheduled. The net outcome of these reviews was that contracts were terminated in respect of one service, and the Providers of a further two services decided they did not wish to re-contract on the grounds that they were not strategically relevant to the SP programme.

Following review, funding was also withdrawn from 22 Registered Care Homes that had been in receipt of SHMG, on the grounds that they did not fall within the SP programme, and so were no longer eligible for SP funding. Of the remaining 219 services it is proposed to offer a new contract at a reduced level of funding in respect of 106 services. In cases where there are ongoing concerns regarding the service being provided, this will be in the form of a short term contract.

In addition to changes in contract values arising as a result of the service review, a number of services are to be re-configured. In some cases the focus of the Client Group has been refined and changed, similar services operated by the same provider in close proximity have been grouped together as one.

7.5 Achieving Measurable Outcomes

The provision of more focused PI returns since April 2004 will enable all services post-review to be given service specific objectives and targets, based on delivering measurable outcomes.

Agreed at a service level, these will vary according to Client Group and service type, but will focus on measuring how each service contributes to the SP preventative agenda, for examples:

· In services for older people a reduction in unplanned admissions to hospital,

· In services for homeless people an increase in planned move on and tenancy sustainment.

Success in meeting these targets will be monitored for the duration of the contract through quarterly PI returns. Information from returns will feed into the strategic review process enabling the most effective forms of service delivery to be identified.

7.6 The Future

This process will continue to apply to all services in this initial three year round of reviews. In April 2006 a different approach will be adopted, with all services scheduled for review not on the basis of the service provider, but on the basis of the Client Group served. The results of the strategic review will set the context for the service review and better allow issues of strategic relevance, and current and future demand to be considered in the wider context.

With the introduction of strategic reviews, service reviews (and consequently the contract length) will in some cases diverge from the three year norm. Early modelling of the proposed new basis for reviews indicates that this is likely to be marginal, with few if any of the intervals between reviews being extended beyond 3 ½ years, or reduced below 2 ½ years.

	Target
1	All initial service reviews to be completed by 31^st March 2006
2	All reviewed services to meet the minimum quality standards by 31^st March 2006
3	All services post review to have service specific objectives and targets by 31^st March 2006

Consultation - Section SEVEN

1. What service specific objectives and targets do you think should be set to ensure the delivery of measurable outcomes ?

2. Is it acceptable for the period between service reviews to differ as a result of the introduction of the strategic review process? ( i.e. the period may be extended beyond 3 ½ years, or reduced below 2 ½ years)?

3. Do you agree with the proposal to move towards Client Group based reviews ?

Section EIGHT: FIVE YEAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Summary of Section EIGHT

In this section we:

· List the eight objectives for the SP programme for the next five years.

· Describe the five year strategy and review process in detail.

· Present the annual development plan for 2005-6 which includes key objectives and relates them to the five year programme.

· Describe the methodology being used for financial planning

· Describe Hampshire's policy on charging for SP services.

· Present proposals for the achievement of the reduction and growth in the SP budget of between 5 and15%.

· Show the relevance of the principles of best value to the SP programme

· Acknowledge the need for refining benchmarking of costs of services.

· Present the Hampshire approach to risk and contingency planning.

8.1 Overarching Objectives 2005 - 2010


Five Year Plan - Overarching Objectives
Objective	Detail	Officer Responsible	Target Date
1	Implement revised service and strategic review process	County Manager / SP team	2009
2	Improve awareness of and access to SP services	SP Team	2005-2008
3	Implement Communications and Partnership Strategy	County Manager	With immediate effect
4	Undertake research into needs of BME groups	SP Team	2005-2008
5	Link in with capital funding sources : · Regional Housing Board · Housing Corporation · Registered Social Landlords	County Manager	On going
6	In partnership with Portsmouth and Southampton and Isle of Wight adopt a Cross Authority approach to services of mutual concern.	SP Team	On going
7	Undertake strategic review of Home Improvement Agencies to identify the best model for delivery of this service.	Lead Coordinator/	October 2005
8	Review legal framework for decision making processes between the AA and CCG.	HCC legal Services and CCG	2006
9	Develop Rural Policy.	SP Team	2010

The Supporting People Five Year Strategy also contains an Annual Action Plan. Each element of the Action Plan relates to one of the overarching objectives set out above.

Objective 1: Implement Revised Service and Strategic Review Process

Objective One of the Five Year Development Plan introduces a strategic approach to commissioning, monitoring, and reviewing SP services through the Policy Framework, Prevention Statements and strategic reviews,

Subsequent service reviews will be used to implement the necessary changes, ensuring that the function of SP services equates with the intentions outlined in the strategy and supported by the findings of the strategic reviews of each Client Group. The chart below illustrates the structure of the process to be adopted.

Hampshire SP Policy Framework

Client Group Prevention Statements

Strategic Reviews

Strategic Review Action Plan

Service Reviews

Remodelling or Re -Commissioning

Service Action Plan and

Service Objectives set

Performance and outcome monitoring

Identifying & Implementing Strategic Objectives

On 1 April 2003, Hampshire Supporting People inherited over 800 services previously funded by legacy sources. During the first three years of the programme all services were reviewed by provider according to the five criteria set down by the ODPM.

The outcome of this by 31^st March 2006 will be:

· That all funded services meet the minimum quality criteria

· Meet the minimum standard for utilisation

· Individually satisfy value for money criteria

· That the overall programme is funded within budget

What it has not been possible to address strategically in this first round of service reviews is:

· What are the preferred form/s of service type

· What specific objectives do stakeholders wish to see met

· What distribution/spread of services do stakeholders wish to see

· How does the current service provision match this vision

· How does current supply match demand and need

· Are services fully accessible to BME users

· Priorities for change/development

To address these issues, and from that to set the strategic context for the second round of individual service reviews from 2006 - 2009, it is proposed to institute a series of strategic reviews.

In summary, the purpose of the strategic review is to enable a District and County-wide view to be taken of the existing provision of services on a Client Group basis, and from this to plan how these might be reshaped for the future, and to inform and direct commissioning decisions.

The outcome of the process will set the strategic context in which individual service reviews and commissioning decisions will take place.

Each strategic review will take place over a period of six months, and will occur in the year prior to the service reviews of services for the Client Group concerned. Following its completion, the outcome of this review will be circulated to all service Providers in advance of their individual service review, and will form the context in which these reviews take place.

A major focus of these subsequent service reviews will therefore be on implementing the outcomes of these strategic reviews, by reshaping and decommissioning existing services. From this priorities for development will also be identified and ordered.

The process itself will be based at a District level, with the findings aggregated and prioritised at a County level. The process will be based on:

· Identifying the key requirements of statutory stakeholders

· Refining and improving knowledge of needs

· Obtaining the views of service providers

· Obtaining the views of Service Users and their representatives

Each District based strategic review will produce as its outcome its own District report. These will them be aggregated, and the objectives contained within them prioritised at the county level to form the overall Hampshire SP view.

The process is based on the active involvement of stakeholders, Service Providers, and Service Users who will be consulted throughout the process, using both established fora and specially convened meetings. At the end of the process the outcomes will be signed off by the local District Inclusive Forum and Core Group.

The proposed timetable for these strategic reviews is:

2005/06 Homeless services (inc those classed as generic or for refugees)

Learning disability services

2006/07 Mental health services

Substance misuse services

Young persons services

2007/08 Older people's services

Offenders services

Physical disability services

Domestic violence services

Further details of the process, including more detailed timelines and resource requirements can be found at Appendix M

Success of these reviews will be measured by the extent to which all funded services in 2010 more closely fit the requirements of stakeholders.

Individual success criteria will be set at the outset for each Client Group strategic review.

Objective 2: Improve Awareness of and Access to SP Services

SP recognises the need to improve awareness of and access routes into SP services.

Supported Housing Panels exist in some, but not all, districts (See PSG's), providing an effective means of monitoring and managing initial access to SP services and resettlement, ensuring they are accessed efficiently and appropriately. Additionally, panels provide a means of gathering important needs information.

It is proposed to encourage the development of SHPs' in all districts. SP will consult with relevant district authorities, stakeholders and Providers with a view to the expansion of this approach.

The ODPM approach to the HUB services system will be investigated and it is further intended to develop a Directory of Services through the local District

A Directory of Services in Fareham and Gosport has existed for some time and work is on going to develop similar directories in Basingstoke and Eastleigh. It is proposed that further work will be undertaken to produce similar directories for the remaining Districts of the County

Objective Three: Implement Communications and Partnership Strategy

SP has developed a revised Communications and Partnership strategy. (See Section Three and Appendix D) SP recognises the need to maintain excellent communications with Partners, Stakeholders and Providers at all levels in order to undertake strategic reviews, manage change and achieve positive outcomes which contribute to the preventative agenda.

Meetings will be held as detailed in Section Three and Appendix D

Objective Four: Undertake Research into the Needs of BME Groups

Research (Primary and Secondary) will be undertaken into the needs of BME groups as part of each strategic review and by analysis of the client record data. The results will be included in the final reports of each strategic review and will be used to inform the resulting action plan.

Objective Five: Link in with Capital Funding Sources

As a member of the South East Regional implementation group, HIOWLA, SHOG and through the medium of the DCG SP has established effective links to sources of capital funding. SP will look to build on these links, to plan effectively and flexible to take advantage of all opportunities which may arise.

Objective Six: Cross Authority Issues

See below.

Objective Seven: Undertake Strategic Review of HIA's

County-wide access to HIA services was achieved in January 2005. Services are currently provided by three separate Providers, two of whom have jointly contracted to provide the new service established in East Hants, Test Valley and Winchester. Contracts are held jointly, with SP SSD (HCC) and the Districts working in partnership and contributing to the contract funding.

Existing contracts will expire in 2007; a strategic review of HIAs will be undertaken prior to this date to enable the services to be re-tendered with a view to establishing one count-wide service in an appropriate format.

Objective Eight: Review of Legal Framework

Legal Services are in the process of a review of the decision making processes between the CCG and AA. A report is expected in 2005, the results of which will be considered by the CCG.

Objective Nine: Develop Rural Policy

Hampshire is a diverse county with both urban and rural areas, each of which face differing issues and problems. As with the approach to establishing the needs of BME groups, it is proposed to consider the needs of Service Users in rural areas such as New Forest and East Hampshire within the scope of the strategic review. Those on low incomes and experiencing other problems, find their difficulties are compounded by isolation or social exclusion and lack of services or difficulty in accessing services due to inadequate transport. Furthermore there is an impact upon the delivery of floating support services which face increased costs and reduced capacity due to the distances involved in delivery. Homelessness has been increasing in rural areas.

Action plans will include an approach to rural issues relevant to the needs of each Client Group.

8.2 Annual Development Plan 2005-2006

Immediate Priorities for Change

	ANNUAL OBJECTIVE	TASK	Intended Outcome	TARGET DATE	RELATED 5 YEAR OBJECTIVE
1	Establish Supported Housing Panels	Consult with district authorities/Providers	Improved access to and awareness of SP services.	March 2006	2
2	Improve awareness of and access to SP services	Develop SP policy on access and awareness issues Investigate ODPM approach to HUB	Improved access to and awareness of SP services Improved partnership working and integration of support services in line with the prevention statements	Ongoing (2005-2008)	2,3
3	Ensure SP is represented in all relevant partnership	Co-ordinators to undertake partnership responsibilities	Improved access to and awareness of SP services Improved partnership working and integration of support services in line with the prevention statements	March 2005	1,2, 3, 5
4	Undertake strategic review of : · Homelessness · Learning Disability services	Introduce strategic reviews by Client Group Move to client group based review timetable	SP services which match identified need and deliver appropriate models of support in the correct locations Implement the Strategic Review Action Plan	2005/6 March 20051	1, 4, 6, 9
5	Work to wards the achievement of a balanced budget	Maintain accurate financial modelling Adopt suitable financial methodology	To ensure balanced budget is achieved, to include allowance for discretion and contingency	Ongoing
6	Move to hours based contracts	New Hours based contract to be introduced post review	Fixed expenditure Maximised flexibility (Provider to work within agreed parameters re service capacity)	Immediately
7	Develop Agreed Prevention Statements for the remaining Client Groups	Prevention Statements will be drafted for each Client Group to translate the policy framework and form the basis of each strategic review	Improve partnership working and maximise measurable outcomes	April 2005	1, 2
8	Review partnership structures	This is underway and a report is awaited. To be submitted to CCG for consideration	Improved partnership working Confirm relation ship between AA and CCG	2005
9	Benchmarking to be undertaken re HIAs	In partnership with Foundations, work to be undertaken on Performance and monitoring standards HIA	Agreed standards for performance and monitoring of HIA's Accurate data for consideration with in Strategic and service reviews	April 2006	1, 7

8.3 Financial Planning

NOTE : In the light of recent announcements this section will be revised

when more information is available

In 2003/4 the SP programme budget for Hampshire was £33.634,572 reducing to £33.466,366 in 2004/5. The budget for 2005/6 is £31.5m. No confirmed figures are yet available for the remaining years of this strategy.

In order to address the budget shortfall resulting from the reduction grant for 2004/5 the Commissioning Body adopted the following measures to be applied post

review in the calculation of the renewed contract values:

·Application of a £20 an hour funding cap

·Application of the relevant South East Regional Quartiles

· Housing related support is limited to a maximum of 17.5 hours per week

In addition the CB agreed that :

· Where there is a low demand for services there should be a reduction in funding or if appropriate the service should not be re-commissioned

·To Impose scheme by scheme "efficiency savings" following service reviews

·To remove SHMG from residential care services within a managed process

Discretion

In developing this methodology it was recognised that discretion may be required in setting the new contract value. Provision has been made for this with the financial forecast. Cases are dealt with on an individual basis in discussion with Providers and the views of stakeholders are taken into account.

Summary of Intended Spend 2005/6

Note : To be updated

Steady State Contract

In order to provide financial stability for both the Administering Authority and Providers, SP has adopted a new model of contract , the Steady State Contract, to be issued post review. SP will contract with Providers for a fixed number of hours of support at a fixed price. The service capacity is agreed in post review discussions with each Provider.

For details of the reasons for moving to the new contract please see Appendix L

The revised contract has been prepared in consultation with the County Legal Services Department and widely consulted upon via the County Inclusive Forum and Providers Reference Group.

Charging Policy

Hampshire does not charge Service Users directly for SP services but instead pays only for those who are eligible. Those who are ineligible for SP funding continue to pay Providers as was the case prior to the introduction of the programme in 2003.

To ensure no-one was worse following the introduction of Supporting People, the AA has commissioned the CAB to carry out financial assessments in borderline cases to establish an individuals eligibility for SP funding.

Principles of Best Value - Managing SP Resources

Best value principles have been adopted to ensure SP provides the support services required at a suitable price. Hampshire SP (the AA), has a duty placed upon it by ODPM to review all contracted services and set challenging targets for improving them. Best Value Principles adopted within the review process provide the opportunity to identify these improvements by:

· Challenging why we provide the service and whether it can be done in a better way.

· Comparing our methods, practices and costs with partners, south east regional quartiles, other AA's (SP teams), and the business and voluntary sectors

· Consulting colleagues, Service Users, partners and stakeholders on what they think about the service and their ideas for improvement

· Competing with other organisations on price and quality through selective tender process

The SP team will continue to promote prudent financial management and to improve cost effectiveness with a view to increasing value for money. This will involve ensuring that procurement practice supports the cost efficient delivery of quality services and best practice in relationships with Providers, stakeholders and partners.

8.4 Risk And Contingency Planning

In order to manage risks to the programme, risk management principals have been applied and a Risk Register and report prepared covering all aspects of the programme. The Risk Register is used as a practical tool on an ongoing basis to ensure risks are identified and appropriate actions or systems put in place to reduce or eliminate risk. A `Risk Report' is produced on a periodic basis to manage identified risks and appropriate action taken in consultation with CCG and strategic partners.

A copy of the risk register is attached at Appendix M

8.5 Cross Authority Statement

Cross Authority Groups are intended to be a mechanism for monitoring cross-authority service usage and for wider cooperation and collaboration around the commissioning, management and delivery of services on a joint / cross authority basis.

Robust, meaningful cross-authority targets have not been set by ODPM but there is an expectation that opportunities for cross-authority working and solutions should be identified and pursued where that is the most appropriate means of providing effective and efficient services and meeting local needs. The CAG provides this opportunity for effective joint working across authority boundaries and a structured way for members to manage a range of issues including but not exclusively, cross authority access to services.

The view of the ODPM is that where a vulnerable group is mobile by nature (such as people fleeing domestic violence or people who are homeless) there is a benefit to planning and managing service provision across a broader area. It is important to ensure the correct level and mix of provision - particularly where linked to hostel or refuge provision - across the region as a whole, rather than for the individual authorities to have identical provision within their own boundaries.

A joint, shared strategic approach will provide benefits both to authorities - by allowing them to jointly fund and manage a more effective range of services - and to Service Users - for whom there would be a better service range.

For this reason the CAG intends to agree a local list of designated services to include provision for women fleeing domestic violence, direct access hostels and move on provision.

Where there is a low level of need (including specialist support) in a particular authority area which is uneconomic to deliver except when aggregated across the group of authorities this may be addressed through the CAG by a jointly commissioned and funded service, to ensure efficient use of available funds and maximise the level of service provision.

Cross-authority working undertaken to date includes the remodelling of HAAS (Hampshire Accommodation and Advice Service) across the region. The final contract will be held jointly by CAG members.

Further Opportunities to improve value for money through aggregation of Supporting People contracts across the local region may be explored within the context of the strategic reviews, e.g. in the case of HIA's.

The Wider Picture

Where matters of cross authority concern arise involving SP funded provision in neighbouring counties and districts, not part of the cross Authority Group (Dorset, Surrey, East Sussex, Wiltshire) they will be dealt with bi-laterally on a case by case basis. Issues which may arise between Hampshire and these authorities are likely to concern direct access provision.

Links are also maintained with SP teams in other two tier authorities who have common needs and issues.

Cross Authority Statement

The following Cross Authority Statement has been agreed by the Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton Cross-Authority Group:

Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton Supporting People Cross-Authority Group Statement

The Cross Authority Group comprises:

· Hampshire County Council,

· Isle of Wight Council,

· Portsmouth City Council

· Southampton City Council.

Joint Working

The combined Supporting People budgets across the four areas total around £60 million (2004/05). The four authorities cover an area with a population of nearly 1.7 million people. Of these, over 35,000 vulnerable people are supported to maintain their accommodation and to maximise their independence within their local communities. The Cross Authority Group (CAG) aims to maximise the value of this resource and provide the best possible services.

Each of the partner authorities recognises the differences in approach which have arisen because of the diverse nature of the authorities and the different demographic profiles which exist.

Joint working is required where:

· People move across local authority boundaries to access services

· Services are provided across boundaries

· Service Providers work across those boundaries

· The opportunities to secure additional resources come from joint commissioning and consortium working

· Economies of scale can be achieved

Terms of Reference for the Cross Authority Group

Terms of reference have been agreed which set parameters for:

· How the CAG will work together

· Identifying key areas for joint working

· Identifying opportunities for joint commissioning

· Respecting differences

· Sharing a voice on national issues, where appropriate.

This agreement is subject to annual review and the development of an annual plan for managing joint working practice.

The following objectives have been identified:

We will aim to :

1. Influence the legislative, national and regional policy and funding framework that impacts upon Supporting People services.

2. Develop an annual work plan for the group.

3. Where a service is funded by more than one authority then a joint approach will be agreed through CAG to commission, monitor and review that service.

4. Where those services are reviewed the results will be made available to CAG.

5. Where the host authority is planning a significant change to a service which is listed by the CAG, the CAG will be consulted and its agreement sought.

6. CAG will consider together any proposals for the commissioning of new services intended for user groups that cross authority boundaries, such as Direct Access Hostels and Women's Refuges.

7. Maximise inward investment and ensure the effective use of resources through joint working and joint provision.

8. Develop an effective communication and collaborative network with common stakeholders.

Member authorities have previously undertaken joint training, information gathering and have consulted on contracting issues, and it is expected to build on these over time.

Quarterly meetings will be chaired by ROCC, an independent charity providing training, consultancy and support, operating across the authority areas.

Cross-authority Services

A number of services have been officially designated as `cross-authority' services:

· services which meet the needs of women fleeing domestic violence

· one service for ex offenders

Changes to these services will only be enacted with the agreement of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM).

The CAG will agree a list of services that are of concern to all or more than one member of the CAG. Where those services are reviewed the results will be made available to CAG. In the event that the host authority plans to change the model of service, the funding of the service, or access to the service, the CAG will be consulted and its agreement sought. In addition CAG will consider together any proposals for the commissioning of new services intended for user groups that cross authority boundaries, such as Direct Access hostels and women's refuges.

In this way CAG will ensure services are maintained that are strategically relevant to the local areas, meet local needs and relate to the wider authority areas.

Limitations of Joint Working

It is recognised that each CAG member will develop its own strategic priorities which may not coincide with joint initiatives. The role of joint working is to complement local priorities, to achieve the best possible services and outcomes for Service Users, and to achieve economies of scale where possible.

Regional working

The four authorities are members of the South East Regional Implementation Group (SERIG). All CAG members may wish to attend SERIG meetings, where only one representative from the four authorities is present, that authority will report back to the local group.

National issues

Where appropriate, the four authorities may also wish to tackle wider, national issues together, where it is in the interests of the CAG and more can be achieved by joint working to present arguments rather than acting as separate authorities.

Locally Designated Cross Authority Services

The following criteria were used by ODPM to determine whether a Supporting People service should be designated as `cross authority':

· All accommodation based services which provide for women at risk of domestic violence as their Primary Client Group

· Services which provide for high risk offenders - e.g. many services provided by the Langley House Trust

· Services which cater for a very specialist combination of needs - e.g., a service for Chinese elders with mental health problems

· Services which offer national coverage - e.g. specialist brain injuries services, of which there are only one or two in England.

In addition to the two Hampshire services officially designated under these criteria as cross authority (Langley House trust and Fareham and Gosport Family Aid ) the following services have been identified locally:


District	Service	Capacity
Basingstoke	Domestic Violence Refuge Direct Access Provision	17 Units 20 Units
Eastleigh	Domestic Violence Refuge	9 Units
East Hampshire	Domestic Violence Refuge	7 Units
FAREHAM & GOSPORT	Direct Access & Move on Provision Domestic Violence Refuges	26 Units 12 Units
Havant	Domestic Violence Refuge	6 Units
Hart & Rushmoor	Direct Access & Move On Provision Semi Independent Accommodation Hampshire Supported Lodgings Floating Support (Substance Misuse)	26 Units 7 Units 11 Units 40 ( FS)
New Forest	Domestic Violence Refuge	10 Units
Test Valley	Direct Access Provision Domestic violence Refuge	12 Units 22 Units
Winchester	Direct Access Provision	24 Units
Note : The HAAS service ( 100 Units) will also be designated

A full list of all services considered to have cross authority significance within the South Central Region will be agreed in the course of 2005.

Consultation - Section EIGHT

1. Do you agree with the current timetable of strategic reviews or do you think the timetable needs to be ordered differently ? If so please advise proposed changes.

2. Do you think adequate time has been allowed to enable all stakeholders to participate in the strategic review process ?

3. Many service user groups receive services through homeless routes. Do you agree that homelessness services should be strategically reviewed first?

4. Should we move away from the current Client Group definitions ?

5. Which services do you think should be locally designated as Cross Authority ?

Appendices

Appendix A: Pipeline Services

Appendix B: Progress against Objectives

Appendix C: Decision Making Structure

Appendix D: Communications Structure

Appendix E : Involving Service Users

Appendix F : HCC Community Strategy

Appendix G: Supply Analysis

Appendix H: Chart-Capacity under 1000

Appendix I : Small Providers

Appendix J: Prevention Services Grids

Appendix K: South East Regional Quartiles

Appendix L: Steady State Contracts

Appendix M: Strategic Review Process

Appendix N: Risk Register

Appendix O: Demographics

Appendix P: Consultation Programme

Appendix Q: References

Glossary

Consultation

Appendix A: Pipeline Services

Provider	Scheme Name	Client Group	Additional Capacity	Date Opened
Fernhill	Fernhill EMI Unit	Older people with mental health problems	21	April 2003
Stonham	East Hants Women's Refuge	Women fleeing Domestic Violence	2	April 2003April 2003April 2003
Stonham	NF Young People West (Vincent/Compton Rd)	Young people at risk	6	Not yet open
Ashley Homes	Drug & Alcohol	Substance Misuse /Complex needs	8	May 2004
SFT	Penn House & Flats	Substance Misuse / Complex needs	11	December 2003
Stonham	NF Young People East (Rumbridge St)	Young people at risk	12	Not yet open
Carr Gomm	Penn House Replacement	Mental Health	7	Feb 2004
Pavillion	Place Court	Frail Elderly	52	April 2003
Signature	New Lane	Mental health and generic	12 (6 +6)	November 2003
Stonham	Eastleigh Women's Refuge	Women fleeing Domestic Violence	9	August 2003
Sarsen	Test Valley Foyer - Move On	Young people at risk	6	March 2004
Atlantic	Lawn Road	Homeless families with support needs	2	March 2003
HVHS	Oakley Lodge	Homeless families with Support needs	8	August 2004
Emmaus	Emmaus Replacement	Single homeless with support needs	7	May 2004
SFT	Young Parents Project	Teenage parents	6	November 2003
Stonham	New Forest Women's Refuge West	Women fleeing Domestic violence	5	April 2004
Atlantic	Derby Road (Desborough Road Flats)	Homeless families with support needs	15	November 2003
Atlantic	Twyford Road	Homeless families with support needs	6	July 2004
Drum	Tenancy Support Service	Single homeless with support needs	12	November 2003
Andover Crisis & Support	Andover Crisis & Support Centre	Women fleeing domestic violence	13	May 2004
Stonham	Mary Rose Court Extension	Single homeless with support needs	4	August 2004

Appendix B: Progress against Objectives Since 2003

	Objective	Progress to date	Comments
1	Ensure the effective implementation of the Supporting People programme	Objective met	Legacy data translated effectively into payment schedules and efficient payment system in place by 31 March 2003 All contracted support services were in payment of Supporting People grant from 6 April 2003 Comprehensive picture of supply has now been established Procedural and complaints policies in place to deal with disagreements
2	Implement and complete to schedule an effective timetable of reviews, all services to be reviewed by March 2006	Objective met	All reviews have commenced on schedule. Year One reviews successfully completed and new contract values agreed by May 2004 Year Two reviews are proceeding on schedule
3	Undertake a comprehensive analysis of need	Ongoing research	Independent needs analysis was commissioned and completed by September 2004. The conclusions will be further explored within the strategic reviews scheduled to be undertaken
4	Develop rural policy	Objective not met	This objective will be carried forward to the five year plan
5	Establish needs of BME groups	Ongoing research	Needs of BME Groups will be examined within the strategic review process Client record data to be analysed
6	Develop user involvement	Objective met	User Involvement group ; SURG established in April 2004, chaired by SP this group meets quarterly. Terms of Reference include consultation and research roles
7	Review SP decision making processes	Ongoing	SP is working with County Legal Services to ensure decision making processes adequately involve all stakeholders and deliver clear outcomes in accordance with the strategic direction of programme

Appendix C: Decision Making Structure

District Inclusive Forum

District Core Group

County Inclusive Forum

COUNTY CORE GROUP

(CB)

Service User Reference Group

SP Team / AA

Appendix D: County Level Communications and Partnership Structure

Level One Level Two Level Three

Health

County Manager to meet bi-annually with

representative from Health.

Lead Coordinator to support the implementation of linked agenda priorities

ROCC

County Manager to meet quarterly with Director of ROCC

Providers / Stakeholders

County Manager and stakeholder representatives to attend expanded County Inclusive Forum (CIF)

Probation

County Manager to meet bi-annually with

representative from Probation

Lead Coordinator to support implementation of linked agenda priorities

Hampshire Supporting People Website

Full range of SP background detail and latest information to be available, regularly updated and providing practical support and information to users

Social Services Department

County Manager to meet quarterly with:

· Deputy Director Social Services

· Assistant Director Adult Services

· Supported Housing Manager

Lead Coordinator to support implementation of linked agenda priorities

Appendix E: Service Users - Three Levels of Communications

Approaches to Consultation

SP wishes to encourage a broad methodology for obtaining a wide range of views. To achieve this the use of primary methods of consultation will be encouraged - standard methods of information seeking such as one to one interviews, focus groups and questionnaires and secondary methods where individual or group views are sought through more abstract approaches such as drama projects, art and design, theme days and special events.

As stated above, SURG are currently developing a broad policy on consultation in the review process. A draft document will be submitted to the CCG in March 2005 setting out a consultation process that will include processes such as:

· SURG presentations to users at services due for review in a following quarter

· Questionnaires covering all aspects of a service review

· A phone line for users to discuss issues relating to Supporting People

Work will start in April next year on developing policy on involving Service Users in the commissioning process.

Hard to Reach User Groups

The Hampshire SP team have been working closely with ROCC to develop a methodology for involving "hard to reach" people in the strategic decision making of SP. As well as providing an overall strategic response to engaging hard to reach groups this project has also produced good practice models for engaging views from hard to reach groups including rough sleepers, night shelter users and young people in temporary accommodation.

The Hampshire SP Team have adopted the `Guidance for Commissioners on Consulting with Hard to Reach Users' and use it as a background document for all work through SURG on developing policy in this area. The report can be found by going to the links below

REPORT - www.rocc.org.uk/report.pdf
GUIDANCE - www.rocc.org.uk/guidance.pdf

The Three Levels

Strategic Level

Sets out how views are sought to better inform the planning and commissioning of services and how service user consultation can be used to better identify need and gaps analysis for new and existing services.

Service Level

Supporting People Teams have a requirement to involve at least 10% of Service Users in the review process. Qualitative discussions are being held with Service Users as part of the service review process. Service Users are be able to tell the Supporting People Team at validation visits and shortly via stakeholder pre review information, what they like or dislike about their service and what works and what doesn't.

Providers are required to provide evidence of their user involvement strategies and set out how their Service Users are involved at the service level.

Personal Level

Service Users must have the opportunity to express their views through a wide range of mechanisms, confidential and non confidential, directly to the Supporting People Team. Such mechanisms include confidential phone lines, mail boxes, email facility, minority language formats, pictorial formats, day centre facilities etc. Service Users Support Plans should also evidence a high degree of one to one consultation on the delivery of their support service. The Hampshire SP Whistle Blowing Policy is open to all users of contracted services.

LEVEL 1 STRATEGIC LEVEL

SURG/POLICY AND CONSULTATION

SP TEAM STRATEGIC & SERVICE REVIEWS

LEVEL 2 SERVICE LEVEL

SURG PRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATION

SP TEAM VALIDATION VISITS

LEVEL 3 PERSONAL LEVEL

SURG CONSULTATION AND PHONE LINE

SERVICE SUPPORT PLANING

SP PHONE LINE

Appendix F: Hampshire Community Strategy (Extract)

Priorities Relevant to SP

The key priorities identified within the Hampshire Community Plan relevant to SP are:

1.Tackling deprivation

· Develop an accurate picture of where the areas of need are by mapping health, education, employment, transport and other issues that affect the quality of life

· Focus efforts and align strategies, programmes and resources to address these areas

· Lobby regional and contract government for support to LSPs in addressing local priorities

2. Improve accessibility

· Improve access in its broadest sense (i.e. transport; IT solutions; access to services; geography; equality of access) and agree a common approach

· Promote and disseminate information to the public to improve awareness of existing services.

3. Reducing Inequalities

· Develop a partnership approach to addressing equality and diversity issues

· Help raise the self esteem of young people through promotion of, for example, connexions, the youth service and family learning

· Focus on prevention rather than cure through promoting healthy lifestyles and focus on public health issues such as obesity, smoking, drug and alcohol abuse

Appendix G: Supply Analysis

County Level Data


Analysis of Capacity by Service User Group : All Service Types
	Accommodation Based	Non Accommodation Based	Totals	Total as % of County Provision
Refugees	8	0	8	0.04
Substance Misuse	5	55	60	0.32
Homeless Families	84	35	119	0.63
Young People Leaving Care	56	0	56	0.29
Teenage Parents	16	25	41	0.22
Single Homeless	402	265	667	3.51
Mental Health	403	175	578	3.04
Young People at Risk	101	100	201	1.06
Frail Elderly	440	72	512	2.69
Women fleeing domestic violence	93	45	138	0.73
Older People with mental health problems	22	15	37	0.19
Older People with Support Needs	10350	3175	13525	71.14
Offenders	56	131	187	0.98
Physical disability and sensory impairment	89	44	133	0.70
Generic	568	1353	1921	10.10
Learning Disabilities	729	101	830	4.37

TOTALS	13422	5591	19013	100
Table 22


Analysis of Spend by Service User Group : All Service Types
Client Group	Total County Spend Non Accommodation Based	Total County Spend Accommodation Based	Total Spend	Total as % of County Spend
Refugees	£0.00	£16,916	£16,916	0.05
Substance Misuse	£97,110.00	£71,272	£168,382	0.51
Homeless Families	£79,986.00	£121,780	£201,766	0.61
Young People Leaving Care	£0.00	£431,076	£431,076	1.30
Teenage Parents	£51,111.00	£117,228	£168,339	0.51
Single Homeless	£782,107.00	£2,469,732	£3,251,839	9.77
Mental Health	£384,432.00	£2,826,298	£3,210,730	9.65
Young People at Risk	£411,244.00	£1,019,758	£1,431,002	4.30
Frail Elderly	£34,849.00	£560,506	£595,355	1.79
Women fleeing domestic violence	£84,310.00	£977,768	£1,062,078	3.19
Older People with mental health problems	£63,747.00	£74,532	£138,279	0.42
Older People with Support Needs	£1,209,060.00	£5,307,838	£6,516,898	19.58
Offenders	£288,180.00	£447,078	£735,258	2.21
Physical disability and sensory impairment	£225,056.00	£652,353	£877,409	2.64
Generic	£2,125,206.00	£758,132	£2,883,338	8.66
Learning Disabilities	£1,025,347.00	£10,572,147	£11,597,494	34.84

TOTALS	£6,861,745	£26,424,414	£33,286,159	100
Table 21

Comparison of South East Regional Funding and Hampshire Funding


Client Group	% of Total SE Regional SPF funding for this SU Group	% of Total Hants SP Funding for this SU Group	Variance	Hants Funding as % of Regional Funding Levels
Refugees	1	0.05	-0.95	5.00
Substance Misuse	2	0.51	-1.49	25.50
Homeless Families	2	0.61	-1.39	30.50
Young People Leaving Care	3	1.31	-1.69	43.67
Teenage Parents	1	0.51	-0.49	51.00
Single Homeless	15	9.85	-5.15	65.67
Mental Health	14	9.72	-4.28	69.43
Young People at Risk	5	4.33	-0.67	86.60
Frail Elderly	2	1.80	-0.20	90.00
Women fleeing domestic violence	3	2.72	-0.28	90.67
Older People with mental health problems	0	0.42	0.42	100.00
Older People with Support Needs	18	19.74	1.74	109.67
Offenders	2	2.23	0.23	111.50
Physical disability and sensory impairment	2	2.45	0.45	122.50
Generic	7	8.73	1.73	124.71
Learning Disabilities	26	35.02	9.02	134.69
Table 19

Note: the figures above are based on first year SP contract payments for services. Additionally, service user numbers, funding within each district and overall client group totals include non-accommodation based services and varying types of accommodation based services.


Total Spend and Number of Service Users by District
District	Number of Service Users	Spend	Average Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	2352	£4,064,305	£33.14
East Hants	1444	£1,428,866	£18.98
Eastleigh	1861	£3,946,737	£40.67
Fareham	1365	£2,835,813	£39.85
Gosport	1037	£1,661,353	£30.73
Hart	921	£1,520,551	£31.66
Havant	1940	£3,339,596	£33.02
New Forest	1640	£4,408,167	£51.55
Rushmoor	2186	£2,485,309	£21.81
Test Valley	2469	£3,913,110	£30.40
Winchester	1803	£3,517,887	£37.42
Table 18
SUMMARY TABLE				Number of Service Users	Spend
Accommodation Based Services				13,422	£26,424,414
Non Accommodation Based Services				5,591	£6,861,745
Overall number of Service Users				19,013	£33,286,159

Accommodation Based Services


Analysis of Spend : Accommodation Based Services
Service User Group	Total County Spend on Accommodation Based Services	Total Number of Service Users
Learning Disabilities	£10,572,147	729
Older People with Support Needs	£5,307,838	10350
Mental Health	£2,826,298	403
Single Homeless	£2,469,732	402
Young People at Risk	£1,019,758	101
Women fleeing Domestic Violence	£977,768	93
Generic	£758,132	568
Physical Disability and Sensory Impairment	£652,353	89
Refugees	£560,506	8
Frail Elderly	£560,506	440
Offenders	£447,078	56
Young People Leaving Care	£431,076	56
Homeless Families	£121,780	84
Teenage Parents	£117,228	8
Older People with Mental Health problems	£74,532	22
Substance Misuse	£71,272	5
TOTAL	£26,968,004	13414

District Data


Number of Service Users and SP Spend by Service User Group
Learning Disabilities ( LD)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County Acc based LD SU's	% of County Acc based Spend on LD	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	86	£989,559	11.80	9.36	0.45	2.97	£220.68
East Hants	84	£608,324	11.52	5.75	0.44	1.83	£138.89
Eastleigh	75	£1,713,149	10.29	16.20	0.39	5.15	£438.09
Fareham	55	£773,037	7.54	7.31	0.29	2.32	£269.57
Gosport	23	£203,989	3.16	1.93	0.12	0.61	£170.10
Hart	45	£438,404	6.17	4.15	0.24	1.32	£186.85
Havant	91	£1,070,851	12.48	10.13	0.48	3.22	£225.69
New Forest	104	£2,236,243	14.27	21.15	0.55	6.72	£412.40
Rushmoor	33	£433,671	4.53	4.10	0.17	1.30	£252.04
Test Valley	73	£1,463,875	10.01	13.85	0.38	4.40	£384.60
Winchester	60	£641,045	8.23	6.06	0.32	1.93	£204.91
�	729	�10,572,147					�278.14

TOTAL	729	£10,572,147			3.83	31.76	£278.14
Table 1


Mental Health (MH)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County MH SU's	% of County Spend on MH	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	35	£280,448	8.68	9.92	0.18	0.84	£153.68
East Hants	6	£14,579	1.49	0.52	0.03	0.04	£46.60
Eastleigh	32	£90,765	7.94	3.21	0.17	0.27	£54.40
Fareham	8	£61,789	1.99	2.19	0.04	0.19	£148.13
Gosport	48	£253,116	11.91	8.96	0.25	0.76	£101.14
Hart	42	£87,740	10.42	3.10	0.22	0.26	£40.07
Havant	65	£535,395	16.13	18.94	0.34	1.61	£157.98
New Forest	22	£279,391	5.46	9.89	0.12	0.84	£243.57
Rushmoor	61	£587,629	15.14	20.79	0.32	1.77	£184.76
Test Valley	34	£190,283	8.44	6.73	0.18	0.57	£107.34
Winchester	50	£445,163	12.41	15.75	0.26	1.34	£170.76
�	403	�2,826,298					�134.51
TOTAL	403	£2,826,298			2.12	8.49	£134.51
Table 2

Homeless Families (HF)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County HF SU's	% of County Spend on HF	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	28	£26,460	33.33	21.73	0.15	0.08	£18.12
East Hants	2	£3,946	2.38	3.24	0.01	0.01	£37.84
Eastleigh	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Fareham	15	£26,730	17.86	21.95	0.08	0.08	£34.18
Gosport	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Hart	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Rushmoor	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Winchester	39	£64,644	46.43	53.08	0.21	0.19	£31.79
�	84	�121,780	100.00				�27.81
TOTAL	84	£121,780			0.44	0.37	£27.81
Table 3

Offenders (Offs)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County OFF's SU's	% of County Spend on Off's	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
East Hants	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Eastleigh	5	£28,035	8.93	6.27	0.03	0.08	£107.54
Fareham	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	8	£48,609	14.29	10.87	0.04	0.15	£116.53
Hart	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Rushmoor	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Winchester	43	£370,434	76.79	82.86	0.23	1.11	£165.22
�	56	�447,078	130.23		0.42	1.69	�153.12
TOTAL	56	£447,078			0.29	1.34	£153.12
Table 4
Older People with Support Needs (OPSN)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County OPSN SU's	% of County Spend on OPSN	% of total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	1076	£404,593	10.40	7.62	5.66	1.22	£7.21
East Hants	904	£218,835	8.73	4.12	4.75	0.66	£4.64
Eastleigh	1341	£690,420	12.96	13.01	7.05	2.07	£9.87
Fareham	816	£478,762	7.88	9.02	4.29	1.44	£11.25
Gosport	664	£616,090	6.42	11.61	3.49	1.85	£17.80
Hart	467	£258,469	4.51	4.87	2.46	0.78	£10.62
Havant	1149	£604,963	11.10	11.40	6.04	1.82	£10.10
New Forest	1134	£674,040	10.96	12.70	5.96	2.02	£11.40
Rushmoor	894	£205,007	8.64	3.86	4.70	0.62	£4.40
Test Valley	511	£584,961	4.94	11.02	2.69	1.76	£21.96
Winchester	1394	£571,698	13.47	10.77	7.33	1.72	£7.87
�	10350	�5,307,838			77.11	20.09	�9.84
TOTAL	10350	£5,307,838			54.44	15.95	£9.84
Table 5

Single Homeless (SH)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County SH SU's	% of County Spend on SH	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	131	£656,332	32.59	26.58	0.69	1.97	£96.09
East Hants	22	£52,119	5.47	2.11	0.12	0.16	£45.44
Eastleigh	6	£33,802	1.49	1.37	0.03	0.10	£108.05
Fareham	46	£448,939	11.44	18.18	0.24	1.35	£187.18
Gosport	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Hart	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Rushmoor	33	£300,159	8.21	12.15	0.17	0.90	£174.45
Test Valley	34	£493,717	8.46	19.99	0.18	1.48	£278.50
Winchester	130	£484,664	32.34	19.62	0.68	1.46	£71.50
�	402	�2,469,732			3.00	9.35	�117.83
TOTAL	402	£2,469,732			2.11	7.42	£117.83
Table 6
Women at risk of domestic violence (DV)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County DV SU's	% of County Spend on DV	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	17	£153,673	18.28	15.72	0.09	0.46	£173.37
East Hants	9	£81,926	9.68	8.38	0.05	0.25	£174.59
Eastleigh	7	£100,569	7.53	10.29	0.04	0.30	£275.55
Fareham	6	£54,917	6.45	5.62	0.03	0.16	£175.54
Gosport	3	£17,572	3.23	1.80	0.02	0.05	£112.34
Hart	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	6	£62,363	6.45	6.38	0.03	0.19	£199.34
New Forest	10	£113,880	10.75	11.65	0.05	0.34	£218.41
Rushmoor	6	£69,234	6.45	7.08	0.03	0.21	£221.31
Test Valley	22	£210,903	23.66	21.57	0.12	0.63	£183.86
Winchester	7	£112,731	7.53	11.53	0.04	0.34	£308.87
�	93	�977,768			0.69	3.70	�201.64
TOTAL	93	£977,768			0.49	2.94	£201.64
Table 7
Young People at Risk (YP @ R )	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County YP@R SU's	% of County Spend on YP @R	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	10	£176,042	9.90	17.26	0.05	0.53	£337.63
East Hants	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Eastleigh	6	£59,885	5.94	5.87	0.03	0.18	£191.42
Fareham	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	10	£68,458	9.90	6.71	0.05	0.21	£131.30
Hart	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	39	£274,077	38.61	26.88	0.21	0.82	£134.78
New Forest	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Rushmoor	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	27	£280,623	26.73	27.52	0.14	0.84	£199.34
Winchester	9	£160,673	8.91	15.76	0.05	0.48	£342.40
�	101	�1,019,758			0.75	3.86	�193.64
TOTAL	101	£1,019,758			0.53	3.06	£193.64
Table 8

Frail Elderly (FE)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County FE SU's	% of County Spend on FE	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	51	£66,042	11.59	11.78	0.27	0.20	£24.84
East Hants	34	£90,385	7.73	16.13	0.18	0.27	£50.99
Eastleigh	120	£156,678	27.27	27.95	0.63	0.47	£25.04
Fareham	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Hart	49	£49,898	11.14	8.90	0.26	0.15	£19.53
Havant	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	94	£112,524	21.36	20.08	0.49	0.34	£22.96
Rushmoor	92	£84,979	20.91	15.16	0.48	0.26	£17.72
Test Valley	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	440	�560,506			3.28	2.12	�
TOTAL	440	£560,506			2.31	1.68	£24.43
Table 9

Generic (GEN)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County Gen SU's	% of County Spend on Gen	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	83	£341,911	14.61	45.10	0.44	1.03	£79.01
East Hants	10	£58,403	1.76	7.70	0.05	0.18	£112.01
Eastleigh	22	£54,792	3.87	7.23	0.12	0.16	£47.77
Fareham	2	£34,184	0.35	4.51	0.01	0.10	£327.81
Gosport	5	£41,042	0.88	5.41	0.03	0.12	£157.43
Hart	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	6	£84,926	1.06	11.20	0.03	0.26	£271.47
Rushmoor	440	£142,874	77.46	18.85	2.31	0.43	£6.23
Test Valley	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	568	�758,132			4.23	2.87	�25.60
TOTAL	568	£758,132			2.99	2.28	£25.60
Table 10
Young People Leaving Care (YPLC)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County YPLC SU's	% of County Spend on YPLC	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
East Hants	5	£33,875	8.93	7.86	0.03	0.10	£129.94
Eastleigh	1	£13,518	1.79	3.14	0.01	0.04	£259.26
Fareham	9	£147,201	16.07	34.15	0.05	0.44	£313.69
Gosport	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Hart	13	£8,954	23.21	2.08	0.07	0.03	£13.21
Havant	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	28	£227,528	50.00	52.78	0.15	0.68	£155.85
Rushmoor	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	56	�431,076			0.42	1.63	�
TOTAL	56	£431,076			0.29	1.30	£147.64
Table 11

Older People with mental health problems (OPMH)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County OPMH SU's	% of County Spend on OPMH	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
East Hants	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Eastleigh	21	£52,995	95.45	71.10	0.11	0.16	£48.40
Fareham	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Hart	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	1	£21,537	4.55	28.90	0.01	0.06	£413.06
Rushmoor	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	22	�74,532			0.16	0.28	�
TOTAL	22	£74,532			0.12	0.22	£64.98
Table 12

Physical disability and sensory impairment (PD)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County PD SU's	% of County Spend on PD	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
East Hants	8	£725	8.99	0.11	0.04	0.00	£1.74
Eastleigh	27	£324,776	30.34	49.79	0.14	0.98	£230.70
Fareham	1	£13,985	1.12	2.14	0.01	0.04	£268.22
Gosport	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Hart	3	£53,818	3.37	8.25	0.02	0.16	£344.06
Havant	2	£30,719	2.25	4.71	0.01	0.09	£294.58
New Forest	7	£108,410	7.87	16.62	0.04	0.33	£297.03
Rushmoor	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	41	£119,920	46.07	18.38	0.22	0.36	£56.10
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	89	�652,353			0.66	2.47	�
TOTAL	89	£652,353			0.47	1.96	£140.58
Table 13
Alcohol

Basingstoke and Deane	0	�0			0.00	0.00
East Hants	0	�0			0.00	0.00
Eastleigh	0	�0			0.00	0.00
Fareham	0	�0			0.00	0.00
Gosport	0	�0			0.00	0.00
Hart	0	�0			0.00	0.00
Havant	0	�0			0.00	0.00
New forest	0	�0			0.00	0.00
Rushmoor	0	�0			0.00	0.00
Test Valley	0	�0			0.00	0.00
Winchester	0	�0			0.00	0.00
	0	�0			0.00	0.00
	0	�0			0.00	0.00
Substance Misuse (SM)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County SM SU's	% of County Spend on SM	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
East Hants	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Eastleigh	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Fareham	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	5	£71,272	100.00	100.00	0.03	0.21	£273.39
Hart	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Rushmoor	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	5	�71,272			0.04	0.27	�
TOTAL	5	£71,272			0.03	0.21	£273.39
Table 14

Refugees (Ref's)	Service Users	Spend	% of total County Ref's SU's	% of County Spend on Ref's	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
East Hants	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Eastleigh	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Fareham	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Hart	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	8	£16,916	100.00	100.00	0.04	0.05	£40.55
Rushmoor	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	8	�16,916			0.06	0.06	�
TOTAL	8	£16,916			0.04	0.05	£40.55
Table 15

Teenage Parents (TP)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County TP SU's	% of County Spend on TP	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
East Hants	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Eastleigh	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Fareham	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Hart	4	£42,886	25.00	36.58	0.02	0.13	£205.63
Havant	6	£28,764	37.50	24.54	0.03	0.09	£91.94
New Forest	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Rushmoor	6	£45,578	37.50	38.88	0.03	0.14	£145.69
Test Valley	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	16	�117,228	100.00		0.12	0.44	�140.52
TOTAL	16	£117,228			0.08	0.35	£140.52
Table 16

Non Accommodation Based Services


Analysis of Spend : Non Accommodation Based Services
Service User Group	Total County Spend	Total Number of Service Users
Refugees	£0.00	0
Substance Misuse	£97,110.00	55
Homeless Families	£79,986.00	35
Young People Leaving Care	£0.00	0
Teenage Parents	£51,111.00	25
Single Homeless	£782,107.00	265
Mental Health	£384,432.00	175
Young People at Risk	£411,244.00	100
Frail Elderly	£34,849.00	72
Women fleeing domestic violence	£84,310.00	45
Older People with mental health problems	£63,747.00	15
Older People with Support Needs	£1,209,060.00	3175
Offenders	£288,180.00	131
Physical disability and sensory impairment	£225,056.00	44
Generic	£2,125,206.00	1353
Learning Disabilities	1,025,347	101
TOTAL	£6,861,745	5591
Table 20


District Data: Number of Service Users and SP Spend by Service User Group
Learning Disabilities (LD)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County Floating LD SU's	% of County Floating Spend on LD	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	4	£26,656	3.96	2.60	0.02	0.08	£127.81
East Hants	16	£32,117	15.84	3.13	0.08	0.10	£38.50
Eastleigh	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Fareham	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	11	£124,221	10.89	12.12	0.06	0.37	£216.59
Hart	31	£250,490	30.69	24.43	0.16	0.75	£154.97
Havant	1	£3,395	0.99	0.33	0.01	0.01	£65.11
New Forest	6	£145,733	5.94	14.21	0.03	0.44	£465.84
Rushmoor	22	£270,282	21.78	26.36	0.12	0.81	£235.63
Test Valley	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Winchester	10	£172,453	9.90	16.82	0.05	0.52	£330.75
�	101	�1,025,347					�194.71
TOTAL	101	£1,025,347			0.53	3.08	£194.71
Table 1


Mental Health (MH)	Service Users	Spend	% of total County MH SU's	% of County Spend on MH	% of Total SP US's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	60	£84,380	34.29	21.95	0.32	0.25	£26.97
East Hants	25	£56,193	14.29	14.62	0.13	0.17	£43.11
Eastleigh	4	£40,871	2.29	10.63	0.02	0.12	£195.97
Fareham	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Hart	3	£16,662	1.71	4.33	0.02	0.05	£106.52
Havant	14	£42,988	8.00	11.18	0.07	0.13	£58.89
New Forest	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Rushmoor	6	£24,464	3.43	6.36	0.03	0.07	£78.20
Test Valley	40	£11,558	22.86	3.01	0.21	0.03	£5.54
Winchester	23	£107,316	13.14	27.92	0.12	0.32	£89.49
�	175	�384,432					�42.13
TOTAL	175	£384,432			0.92	1.15	£42.13
Table 2

Homeless Families (HF)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County HF SU's	% of County Spend on HF	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
East Hants	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Eastleigh	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Fareham	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Hart	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Rushmoor	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	35	£79,986	100.00	100.00	0.18	0.24	£43.83
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	35	�79,986	100.00				�43.83
TOTAL	35	£79,986			0.18	0.24	£43.83
Table 3

Offenders (Off's)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County OFF's SU's	% of County Spend on Off's	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	25	£36,948	19.08	12.82	0.13	0.11	£28.35
East Hants	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Eastleigh	13	£57,755	9.92	20.04	0.07	0.17	£85.21
Fareham	11	£19,835	8.40	6.88	0.06	0.06	£34.58
Gosport	10	£50,337	7.63	17.47	0.05	0.15	£96.54
Hart	25	£36,948	19.08	12.82	0.13	0.11	29.35
Havant	11	£19,835	8.40	6.88	0.06	0.06	£34.58
New Forest	11	£29,574	8.40	10.26	0.06	0.09	£51.56
Rushmoor	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	25	£36,948	19.08	12.82	0.13	0.11	28.35
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	131	�288,180	#DIV/0!		2.34	4.20	�42.19
TOTAL	131	£288,180			0.69	0.87	£42.19
Table 4

Older People with Support Needs	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County OPSN SU's	% of County Spend on OPSN	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	430	£72,085	13.54	5.96	2.26	0.22	£3.22
East Hants	158	£67,214	4.98	5.56	0.83	0.20	£8.16
Eastleigh	50	£40,500	1.57	3.35	0.26	0.12	£15.54
Fareham	126	£29,337	3.97	2.43	0.66	0.09	£4.47
Gosport	100	£17,000	3.15	1.41	0.53	0.05	£3.26
Hart	129	£49,595	4.06	4.10	0.68	0.15	£7.37
Havant	541	£540,459	17.04	44.70	2.85	1.62	£19.16
New Forest	90	£30,000	2.83	2.48	0.47	0.09	£6.39
Rushmoor	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	1551	£362,870	48.85	30.01	8.16	1.09	£4.49
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	3175	�1,209,060			56.79	17.62	�7.30
TOTAL	3175	£1,209,060			16.70	3.63	£7.30
Table 5

Single Homeless (SH)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County SH SU's	% of County Spend on SH	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	56	£280,085	21.13	35.81	0.29	0.84	£95.92
East Hants	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Eastleigh	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Fareham	170	£264,582	64.15	33.83	0.89	0.79	£29.85
Gosport	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Hart	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	5	£80,258	1.89	10.26	0.03	0.24	£307.86
New Forest	18	£90,235	6.79	11.54	0.09	0.27	£96.15
Rushmoor	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Winchester	16	£66,947	6.04	8.56	0.08	0.20	£80.25
�	265	�782,107			4.74	11.40	�56.60
TOTAL	265	£782,107			1.39	2.35	£56.60
Table 6

Women at risk of domestic violence (DV)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County DV SU's	% of County Spend on DV	% of Total SP SU's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
East Hants	20	£24,411	44.44	28.95	0.11	0.07	£23.41
Eastleigh	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Fareham	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	20	£29,149	44.44	34.57	0.11	0.09	£27.95
Hart	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	5	£30,750	11.11	36.47	0.03	0.09	£117.95
Rushmoor	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	45	�84,310			0.80	1.23	�35.93
TOTAL	45	£84,310			0.24	0.25	£35.93
Table 7

Young People at Risk (YP@R)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County YP@R SU's	% of County Spend on YP @ R	% of Total SP US's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
East Hants	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Eastleigh	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Fareham	100	£411,244	100.00	100.00	0.53	1.24	£78.87
Gosport	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Hart	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Rushmoor	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	100	�411,244			1.79	5.99	�78.87
TOTAL	100	£411,244			0.53	1.24	£78.87
Table 8

Frail Elderly (FE)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County FE SU's	% of County Spend on FE	% of Total SP US's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
East Hants	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Eastleigh	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Fareham	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Hart	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Rushmoor	72	£34,849	100.00	100.00	0.38	0.10	£9.28
Test Valley	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	72	�34,849			1.29	0.51
TOTAL	72	£34,849			0.38	0.10	£9.28
Table 9

Generic (Gen)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County Gen SU's	% of County Spend on Gen	% of Total SP US's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	260	£399,421	19.22	18.79	1.37	1.20	£29.46
East Hants	141	£86,813	10.42	4.08	0.74	0.26	£11.81
Eastleigh	131	£488,136	9.68	22.97	0.69	1.47	£71.47
Fareham	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	128	£173,862	9.46	8.18	0.67	0.52	£26.05
Hart	85	£175,577	6.28	8.26	0.45	0.53	£39.62
Havant	10	£45,530	0.74	2.14	0.05	0.14	£87.32
New Forest	75	£190,494	5.54	8.96	0.39	0.57	£48.71
Rushmoor	476	£205,438	35.18	9.67	2.50	0.62	£8.28
Test Valley	25	£39,820	1.85	1.87	0.13	0.12	£30.55
Winchester	22	£320,115	1.63	15.06	0.12	0.96	£279.07
�	1353	�2,125,206			24.20	30.97	�30.13

TOTAL	1353	£2,125,206			7.12	6.38	£30.13
Table 10
Young People Leaving Care	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County YPLC SU's	% of County Spend on YPLC	% of Total SP US's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
East Hants	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Eastleigh	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Fareham	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Hart	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Rushmoor	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
TOTAL �	0	�0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Table 11

Older People with mental health problems (OPMH)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County OPMH SU's	% of County Spend on OPMH	% of Total SP US's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
East Hants	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Eastleigh	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Fareham	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Hart	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	15	£63,747	100.00	100.00	0.08	0.19	£81.51
Rushmoor	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	15	�63,747			0.27	0.93	�
TOTAL	15	£63,747			0.08	0.19	£81.51
Table 12

Physical disability and sensory impairment (PD)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County PD SU's	% of County Spend on PD	% of Total SP US's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	9	£69,670	20.45	30.96	0.05	0.21	148.47
East Hants	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Eastleigh	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Fareham	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	2	£17,908	4.55	7.96	0.01	0.05	£171.73
Hart	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Rushmoor	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	33	£137,478	75.00	61.09	0.17	0.41	£79.90
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	44	�225,056			0.79	3.28	�
TOTAL	44	£225,056			0.23	0.68	£98.10
Table 13
Alcohol

Basingstoke and Deane	0	�0			0.00	0.00
East Hants	0	�0			0.00	0.00
Eastleigh	0	�0			0.00	0.00
Fareham	0	�0			0.00	0.00
Gosport	0	�0			0.00	0.00
Hart	0	�0			0.00	0.00
Havant	0	�0			0.00	0.00
New forest	0	�0			0.00	0.00
Rushmoor	0	�0			0.00	0.00
Test Valley	0	�0			0.00	0.00
Winchester	0	�0			0.00	0.00
	0	�0			0.00	0.00
	0	�0			0.00	0.00
Substance Misuse (SM)	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County S M SU's	% of County Spend on S M	% of Total SP US's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
East Hants	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Eastleigh	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Fareham	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Hart	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Rushmoor	45	£81,144	81.82	83.56	0.24	0.24	£34.58
Test Valley	10	£15,966	18.18	16.44	0.05	0.05	£30.62
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	55	�97,110			0.98	1.42	�
TOTAL	55	£97,110			0.29	0.29	£33.86
Table 14

Refugees	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County Ref's SU's	% of County Spend on Ref's	% of Total SP US's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
East Hants	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Eastleigh	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Fareham	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Hart	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Havant	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Rushmoor	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Winchester	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	0	�0			0.00	0.00	�
TOTAL	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Table 15
Teenage Parents	Service Users	Spend	% of Total County TP SU's	% of County Spend on TP	% of Total SP US's	% of Total SP Spend	Av Weekly Unit Cost
Basingstoke and Deane	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
East Hants	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Eastleigh	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Fareham	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Gosport	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Hart	25	£51,111	100.00	100.00	0.13	0.15	£39.21
Havant	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
New Forest	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Rushmoor	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Test Valley	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
Winchester	0	£0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	-
�	25	�51,111	100.00		0.45	0.74	�39.21
TOTAL	25	£51,111			0.13	0.15	£39.21
Table 16

Appendix H: Capacity By Service User Group where Capacity is under 1000 Units

Appendix I: Definition of a Small Provider

Hampshire Supporting People wish to ensure that the processes that they impose on Providers in terms of information requests take into account the size of the provider whilst at the same time ensuring adequate protection for Service Users and the Administering Authority.

To take account of these conflicting demands, Hampshire has developed a set of criteria to identify Providers who can be classed as `small'. Qualifying Providers will be subject to a light touch in terms information requirements such as the Performance Information Returns and Quality Assessment Forms and service review.

To be classed as a Small Provider, all of the following criteria must be satisfied:

1. The service provider does not have a Supporting People contract with any other Authority.

2. The service provider is contracted by Hampshire SP to provide no more than two separate services.

3. The total number of Service Users in the contracted service does not exceed 12

4. The total value of the Hampshire SP contract does not exceed £40,000 pa

5. The total number of staff in a contracted service delivering housing related support is less than 2 FTE.

Appendix J: Preventative Services Grid - County Overview

KEY

B: Basingstoke & Deane

E: Eastleigh

HE: East Hants

F&G: Fareham & Gosport

H: Havant

H&R: Hart & Rushmoor

NF: New Forest

TV : Test Valley

W: Winchester

Floating

Support

Emergency Short Stay

24 Hour

Supported Accommodation

Low Support / Accommodation based

Supported Lodgings or Adult Placement

Home Improvement Agency

Supported Housing Panel

Frail Elderly

EH F+G

H&R

TV
W

H&R

F+G

H&R

F+G

H&R

TV (1)

F&G

H&R

TV Jan05

H&R

Offenders

F+G

H&R

F+G

H&R

Floating

Support

Emergency Short Stay

24 Hour

Supported Accommodation

Low Support / Accommodation based

Supported Lodgings or Adult Placement

Home Improvement Agency

Supported Housing Panel

Older Persons with Mental Health Problems

EH F+G

F&G

H&R

TV Jan05

W Jan 05

Older persons with Support Needs

EH F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

People with Physical Disabilities

EH F&G

NF TV

F&G

H&R

F&G

Floating

Support

Emergency Short Stay

24 Hour

Supported Accommodation

Low Support / Accommodation based

Supported Lodgings/Adult Placement

Home Improvement Agency

Supported Housing Panel

People with Alcohol Problems

F&G

People with Learning Disabilities

F&G

H&F

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&F

F&G

H&F

F&G

H&R

People with Mental Health Problems

F&G

H&F

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&F

F&G

Floating

Support

Emergency Short Stay

24 Hour

Supported Accommodation

Low Support / Accommodation based

Supported Lodgings or Adult Placement

Home Improvement Agency

Supported Housing Panel

Refugees

F&G

Single Homeless

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

Homeless Families with Support Needs

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

Floating

Support

Emergency Short Stay

24 Hour

Supported Accommodation

Low Support / Accommodation based

Supported Lodgings or Adult Placement

Home Improvement Agency

Supported Housing Panel

Teenage Pregnancy

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

Women fleeing Domestic Violence

B/3

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

Young People at Risk

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

Young People Leaving Care

EH F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

F&G

H&R

Appendix K: South East Regional Quartile Range

(by Client Group & Accommodation Type)

(weekly cost per person)

Client Group	Accommodation Type	Lower Quartile	Upper Quartile
Frail Elderly People	Very Sheltered Housing	£27.00	£50.00
	Sheltered Housing	£16.00	£34.00
Generic Services	Unregistered Adult Placement	£255.00	£328.00
	Supported Housing	£50.00	£171.00
	Floating Support	£41.00	£92.00
Homeless Families with Support Needs	Supported Housing	£13.00	£93.00
Offenders or People at risk of offending	Supported Housing	£112.00	£268.00
Older People with Support Needs	Very Sheltered Housing	£13.00	£43.00
	Supported Housing	£4.00	£37.00
	Floating Support	£26.00	£64.00
	Sheltered Housing	£4.00	£15.00
People with a Physical or Sensory Disability	Supported Housing	£11.00	£169.00
	Floating Support	£54.00	£205.00
People with Drug Problems	Supported Housing	£77.00	£212.00
People with Learning Disabilities	Unregistered Adult Placement	£175.00	£258.00
	Supported Housing	£130.00	£401.00
	Floating Support	£85.00	£432.00
	Registered Adult Placement	£84.00	£137.00
	Residential Care Home	£25.00	£254.00
People with Mental Health Problems	Supported Housing	£78.00	£207.00
	Floating Support	£42.00	£99.00
	Residential Care Home	£64.00	£248.00
Single Homeless People with Support Needs	Supported Housing	£55.00	£177.00
	Floating Support	£42.00	£70.00
Teenage Parents	Supported Housing	£123.00	£208.00
	Supported Housing / Floating Support
Women at Risk of Domestic Violence	Supported Housing / Refuge	£177.00	£274.00
Young People at Risk or Leaving Care	Supported Housing	£93.00	£249.00
	Floating Support	£39.00	£107.00
Foyer for Young People	Foyer for Young People	£80.00	£198.00

Appendix L: Steady State Contracts

SP has adopted a new model of contract, the Steady State Contract, to be issued post first review. Steady State contracts define capacity in terms of the number of hours provided, rather than defining service capacity in terms of units or individuals.

Following service reviews, capacity is agreed with the Provider. If demand exceeds capacity the Provider may be encouraged to bid to increase capacity through District Core Groups. Such bids will be judged against other bids for increasing capacity or new services.

Benefits

_Financial liability is planned and predictable

_Investment can be co-ordinated and strategic

_The programme can be administered without large amounts of administrative labour

Appendix M: Strategic Reviews - `A 12 Step Process'

Purpose

The purpose of the strategic review is to enable a district and county wide view to be taken of the existing provision of services on a Client Group basis, and from this to plan how these might be reshaped for the future, and to inform and direct commissioning decisions.

Summary

Current provision (supply) can be assessed in terms of capacity (units & hours), service type, nature, objectives, location, accessibility, quality & age of buildings etc. This assessment can then be compared against the requirements of the Supporting People partnership, and their preventative agendas (as identified in the preventative statements), and where it exists, robust information on need.

The outcome of the process will be a strategic context in which individual service reviews and commissioning decisions can take place. This context needs to address the following:

· What are the preferred form/s of service type

· What specific objectives do stakeholders wish to see met

· What distribution/spread of services do stakeholders wish to see

· How does the current service provision match this vision

· How does current supply match demand and need

· Priorities for change/development

Timescales

All strategic reviews will need to be completed within tight timescales of no more than six months. For timings throughout the process, see Annexe A. Where circumstances allow, two separate Client Group services may be subject to a strategic review at the same time.

Resources

For practical purposes, the county has been divided into the following nine areas on which the district strategic reviews will be based: Basingstoke, East Hants, Eastleigh, Fareham & Gosport, Hart & Rushmoor, Havant, New Forest, Test Valley, Winchester. The calculation of the time required of all SP staff to conduct the reviews has been calculated on this basis.

12 Step Process

1. Send out initial letter (Example at Annex C), to all interested parties explaining in outline the process that is about to be embarked on. Include with this explanatory letter a clear timetable, and the relevant preventative statement (similar to service review 6 week letter). Provide 4 weeks notice of, and invite them to attend the initial meeting

2. Produce baseline district supply data in format described above

3. Hold initial meeting of Providers, Users, and other interested partners to explain in depth the process and what the end objective is. (For the first strategic review statutory stakeholders should also be invited, unless they have been approached separately, and had the process explained. After having gone through the process once however they are unlikely to attend subsequent meetings).

This meeting should also be used to take the opportunity to intelligence gather (i.e. collect anecdotal evidence
).

At this meeting you should have available and discuss details of all existing relevant services - the baseline district supply data.

Dates should be set for the second and third meetings

4. Within 5 working days of the initial meeting a questionnaire (Example at Annexe D) should be sent out to the statutory stakeholders, along with the preventative statement, and the baseline district supply data. Recipients should be asked to:

a. Translate the relevant Client Group Prevention Statement into practical terms applicable to their locality and/or the county (their vision)

b. Assess how they think that current services fit into this vision

c. Identify what is required locally to change to meet `their vision'; is it more/less services; is it services of a different type; is it a different structure, different location etc

5. Within 5 working days of the initial meeting a questionnaire (Example at Annexe E) should be sent out to the Providers of all services to this Client Group (ie all those identified in the baseline district data) along with the relevant preventative statement. Recipients should be asked to:

a. Identify how their services fit into the framework outlined in the preventative statement and how they contribute to meetings the objectives set out in
it

b. Identify how their services could fit/could fit better, into the framework, and meet the objectives more fully in 12 months time

6. Draw together all existing knowledge on need, undertake intelligence gathering

7. Collate & analyse returned questionnaires, conduct impact assessment and compile all needs knowledge and intelligence gathered.

8. Hold second meeting of stakeholders, providers, users, and other interested parties to present initial findings. These should clearly state:

a. What they are

b. What their implications are/impact assessment

c. What else we need to know

d. Where there are any existing County level `givens', and what they are

A summary of this should then be produced for a brief consultation period

9. Hold a third meeting to present the final conclusions

10. Aggregate findings at a county level

11. Present final report in standardised format summarising findings to CCG for endorsement

12. Feedback locally on overall County view to DCGs, and DIFs

Timescale Event Activity

Week 1 Issue Initial Letter

Produce baseline district supply data

Week 5 Hold First meeting

Week 6 Issue Questionnaires

Assemble needs knowledge

Week 10 Deadline for return of Questionnaires

Collate & Analyse questionnaires

Week 12 All Questionnaires returned

Collate & Analyse questionnaires

Draw up first draft of findings

Week 16 Hold Second meeting

Receive consultation feedback

Draw up conclusions

Week 20 Hold Third meeting

Aggregation of district conclusions

Production of County wide strategic context

Week 24 Present to CCG

Production of County wide strategic context

And Then Present to DCGs

And DIFs

Hampshire Supporting People Stakeholder Strategic Questionnaire

Client Group:

Period of Review:

Name of person completing questionnaire:

Organisation:

Position in organisation:

Date completed:

The purpose of this questionnaire is to assist the Hampshire Supporting People team in assessing how well the current level of service provision

for {Insert client group} meets the needs of you and the other statutory stakeholders.

Before answering the questions below, please ensure that you have read

the enclosed preventative statement and that your answers take account

of the context it sets.

The answers you provide, along with other information and views obtained

as part of this exercise, will be used to inform both how existing services are shaped or re-shaped, and also the overall commissioning process.

What do you want ?

1. What are the main strategic priorities for you in terms of delivering housing related support services to this Client Group ?

2. What are the key objectives that you would like to see services for this Client Group deliver on ?

3. What is your preferred model of service delivery for meeting these objectives (if these vary according to different objectives, please state all)

4. Are there any models of service delivery that you would not wish to see ?

How are current services delivering ?

5. Do you consider that all of the services listed are contributing towards the achievement of these objectives ?

6. If yes, please list in order of the contribution you feel that they are making, including the objective(s) you feel they are helping to achieve

7. Are there any services which you consider do not currently contribute to achieving these objectives ?

8. Which, if any, of your key objectives do you not feel are currently being met ?

9. How do you consider current services could be altered to better meet your key objectives ?

Are current services the `right' ones ?

10. Do you consider that all of the services listed conform to your preferred form of service delivery ?

11. If you answered no in respect of any service, please explain why

12. Do you consider that the services listed are, broadly speaking in the right locations ?

13. If you answered no in respect of any service, please explain why

14. Do you consider that for those services described as `accommodation based', that the accommodation is fit for the purpose described ?

15. If you answered no in respect of any service, please explain why

How does the current supply match needs ?

16. Overall, how well do you consider the overall supply of services matches demand ?

17. If you consider that demand is greater than supply, please state what you have based this view on (please attach any hard evidence you may have)

18. Overall, how well do you consider the current balance of service type matches demand ?

19. Are there any existing services for which you consider demand is substantially greater than others ?

20. If yes, do you know of any reasons for this ?

21. Are there any existing services for which you consider demand is significantly lower than others ?

22. If yes, do you know of any reasons for this ?

23. What would you consider are the priorities for change within current services ?

24. What would you consider are the priorities for development ?

25. Finally, is there any further information you would like to give us that you feel would be helpful in developing a strategic assessment of services for this Client Group ?

Hampshire Supporting People Service Provider Strategic Questionnaire

Client Group:

Period of Review:

Name of person completing questionnaire:

Organisation:

Position in organisation:

Date completed:

The purpose of this questionnaire is to assist the Hampshire Supporting People team in assessing how well the current level of service provision for {Insert Client Group } meets the needs of the statutory stakeholders, and fits the objectives of the Supporting People programme

Before answering the questions below, please ensure that you have read the enclosed preventative statement and that your answers take account of the context and objectives it sets.

The answers you provide, along with other information and views obtained as part of this exercise, will be used to inform both how existing services are shaped or re-shaped, and also the overall commissioning process.

1. Please list all the services you provide for this Client Group , including their type and capacity

2. Please state what the objectives are for each of the services listed above

3. Please state how each of the services listed above contribute to the objectives set out in the SP preventative statement for this Client Group

4. Please state which of the primary objectives included in this preventative statement you most directly contribute to (and how)

5. How do you feel you could make changes to your service over the next twelve months to better meet these objectives ?

6. Do you feel that your services are correctly located geographically ?

7. If you provide an accommodation based service do you feel that the accommodation is adequate for the purposeIf not why not

8. Do you feel that there is a greater demand for the type of service you provide than can currently be met ?

9. If your answer was yes, what evidence do you have to support this view

Finally, is there any further information you would like to give us that you feel would be helpful in developing a strategic assessment of services for this Client Group ?

Appendix N: Risk Register

Ref no.	Date identified	Risk Category	Consequence of risk occurring	Score	Actions to manage risk (incl. timescales and deadlines)	Risk owner
1		Strategy	Time ; quality; people; resources ;costs safety ; Service Users; service providers; perception of SP	High Medium Low	Eliminate; reduce; transfer; tolerate ; contingency	Staff member responsible for the actions identified
1.1	09 June 2004	Failure to deliver agreed strategy due to lack of consensus	Failure to meet ODPM requirements Programme implementation delayed Services threatened Financial instability	High	Accurate project planning Extensive consultation Appropriate allocation of resources Communication and Partnerships structures Conflict resolution procedure in place	SP Lead Officer
2		Financial Management
2.1	9 June 2004	Inaccurate financial forecasting	Budget overspend / under spend may result in the inability to plan for potential over/ under spend Incorrect payments to providers Inability to implement 5 year strategy	High	Monthly budget monitoring Accurate working practices Undertake regular reconciliations Accurate and timely amendments from Providers Spot checking of provider amendments	SP Finance Officer
2.3	9 June 2004	Introduction of financial cap (£20 per hour and quartiles)	Providers unable to operate at new rate Services collapse	High Medium	Use of discretion where possible / appropriate Contingency planning and planned closures	CB/ County Manager
2.4	9 June 2004	Significant reduction in SP grant	Budget overspend	High	Effective financial planning - see above Planned closures/ reductions in contract capacities Termination of contracts	County Manager Review Coordinator Contracts and Finance Coordinator
3		SP Contracts
3.1	9 June 2004	Fixed capacity contracts unacceptable to Sheltered Housing providers	Contracts not agreed with Sheltered Housing Providers Instability of Sector	Medium	Specific contract considered to address issues of concern	County Manager
3.2	9 June 2004	Contract compliance -Providers fail to comply with requests for data	Review process delayed Incorrect payments made Services fail to deliver appropriate support per contract	Medium Medium Medium	Contract Monitoring Issue of default notices Contract monitoring	Review Coordinator
4		Reviews
4.1	9 June 2004	Risk of legal challenge to SP decisions / reviews	Financial consequences - new contract value delayed Workload - DCG/ CCG involved in considering the complaint If successful wider implications for the long term management and delivery of the programme	Medium Low Medium	Conflict resolution policy Ensure all decisions are soundly based and accurately recorded Clear guidance issued to all parties Precise criteria set and published	SP Lead Officer Review Coordinator Local coordinator SP lead Officer Review Coordinator CCG
		Operational delivery of the programme

6		Service Providers
6.1	9 June 2004	Financial changes to contract values	Provider/ service may be non viable Threats to stability of sector Provider redundancies Services withdrawn - Service Users unable to access services	Low Low Low Medium	Limit impact wherever possible through use of effective planning and communication with strategic partners / identify other funding sources Use of discretion in awarding contract values Management of process timescale - phase in Effective contingency planning Partnership working	Review Coordinator / Finance Team
6.2	9 June 2004	Underlying financial structure unsound	Financial collapse of provider	Low	Accreditation of providers Contingency planning	County Manager / Finance team Local Coordinator
6.3	9 June 2004	Inability of provider to deliver on review outcomes	Default notice issued New provider to be found to assume responsibility for SU's Contract termination		Follow up monitoring post review / Repeat Validation visits Contingency planning to identify procedure to locate alternative provider - tendering process in place Clear process to be identified to be adopted including guidance on appropriate grounds	Review Coordinator Review Coordinator Review Coordinator
6.4	9 June 2004	Failure to comply with action plans	Failure to improve quality Risk to Service Users / staff Default on SP contract		Strict monitoring of compliance with required actions Contingency planning Clear tender process identified	Review Coordinator Review Coordinator Review Coordinator

Appendix O: Hampshire's Population

Demographic Information

Hampshire is a two-tier authority comprising 11 Districts or Borough Councils and 251 parishes as shown in Fig 1 below.

Fig I:

Although not part of the administrative county, Southampton, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight have a significant impact on transport connections, employment and travel to work, housing, education and economic needs.

Population

The third largest county in England (after Kent and Essex) Hampshire has a population of just over 1.25 million people with an age profile similar to that of the rest of UK. A combination of urban and rural areas (10% urban / 90 % rural), the majority ( 87%) of the population live within urban areas.

Age and Gender Profile

Close examination of the age structures throughout the county reveals that the New Forest has the highest elderly population and is markedly different from the rest of the county. Population growth projections, based on the most recent Government guidance on new dwellings requirements, are relatively low (3.4 per cent between 2001 and 2011): In line with the national profile Hampshire faces an increase in the number of older persons aged over 65. This will be countywide but the percentage increases will be highest in those districts with relatively low proportions in the retirement age groups in the base year, for example, Basingstoke, Hart and Rushmoor. Nevertheless, New Forest will still contain the largest proportion of older persons. Importantly for Supporting People services, growth of almost 40 per cent is expected in the over-85 age group in the period up to 2011.

In the period 1991 to 2001, the County's population increased by 62,000 or 5.3 per cent. The population of Eastleigh increased by 9,700, and there were net gains of over 8,000 in New Forest, Test Valley and Winchester. There were population increases in all other districts except Havant, where the population declined by almost 3,000, and Gosport, where the population size remained static. These changes in population will mean increased demand for support services in the growing areas although predicting the nature of the required support is difficult.

Fig 2 : Population data for Hampshire by age and gender:

Population data for Hampshire by age and gender

Age Range Total Males Females

0 - 4 72178 37053 35125

5 - 9 79425 40804 38621

10 - 14 82365 42306 40059

15 - 19 74971 39289 35682

20 - 24 62496 32703 29793

25 - 29 72690 36655 36035

30 - 34 89235 43724 45511

35 - 39 99891 48972 50919

40 - 44 93167 46664 46503

45 - 49 82659 40841 41818

50 - 54 92241 45721 46520

55 - 59 75909 37597 38312

60 - 64 61744 30357 31387

65 - 69 55663 26780 8883

70 - 74 50153 23239 26914

75 - 79 41424 17355 24069

80 - 84 28563 10721 17842

85 - 89 16728 5247 11481

90 and over 8601 2015 6586

Totals 1240103 608043 632060

Source: ONS 2001 Census Data

Fig 3:

Source: ONS 2001 Census Data

Index of Deprivation

Although Hampshire is generally a relatively prosperous county, there are significant areas of deprivation. The 10% most deprived areas in Hampshire fall within the 40% most deprived nationally. 24 of these 82 areas are within the worst 20% nationally. These areas are in the districts of Havant, Gosport, Fareham, Rushmoor and the New Forest

The indices of multiple deprivation encompass seven topics; six of these topics - income, employment, health, education, crime and living environment all produce a similar geographical pattern based upon urban concentrations. The seventh indicator, access to housing and services, tends to produce a pattern of deprivation in rural areas due to difficulties encountered in accessing services.

The table below lists the ranking of the districts according to the average in each district

Fig 4 : Average Super Output Area rank / IMD

District	Indices of Deprivation rank order of district by average Super Output Area Score (out of 354 local authority districts)
Basingstoke and Deane	313
East Hants	328
Eastleigh	311
Fareham	330
Gosport	189
Hart	354
Havant	137
New Forest	286
Rushmoor	287
Test Valley	317
Winchester	338

Rural Deprivation

Areas of rural deprivation do exist within Hampshire but they remain hidden due to the dispersed nature of rural communities and the high numbers of people in rural areas who are not deprived.

In contrast, based upon the Geographical Access to Services Index, most of Hampshire's rural wards are in the top twenty percent of the most deprived wards in England and almost all are in the top fifty percent. Those on low incomes and experiencing other problems find their difficulties are compounded by isolation or social exclusion and lack of services or difficulty in accessing services due to inadequate transport. Furthermore there is an impact upon the delivery of floating support services which face increased costs and reduced capacity due to the distances involved in delivery. Homelessness has been increasing in rural areas.

Urban Deprivation

Of the urban areas in the county, Havant, with sixteen of the 20 most deprived areas in Hampshire, falls within the forty percent most deprived districts in England. Pockets of relative deprivation also exist in more affluent areas such as Winchester, Hart and the New Forest. Not all are recognized using the average score on the indices of deprivation due to the level at which data is produced.

Investigation at ward level shows the twenty most deprived areas are situated within Havant and Gosport. Those four with the highest scores are concentrated within the Leigh Park area of Havant. Warren Park (Havant) is ranked 286 out of 8414 wards in England, in the top 3.5% and 3 other wards are amongst the 10% most deprived in England. The area is ranked top in the IMD table for Hampshire in terms of income, employment, education and housing.

Strong links exist between IMD and rates of teenage pregnancy, combined with the population data from the 2001 census this is clearly evidenced and supported by local research. Undertaken at ward level, investigation will produce a picture as follows

Health of the Population

Health indicators for Hampshire are generally good compared with England as a whole, there is, however, a significant variation reflecting the area's wide socio-economic inequalities. The incidence of mental health problems is increasing: One in four of the population will have a mental health problem at some time in their life. In Hampshire this means that over 130,000 people aged 18-64 will be receiving help for a mental health problem at any one time. The level of teenage pregnancy, while being under the English national average, is higher than the national rate for any western European country.

Unemployment Statistics

Unemployment in Hampshire is consistently below the national average. The latest figures show the unemployment rate in Hampshire at 0.9 per cent, compared with the national average of 2.3 per cent. There are significant differences within the county, with average earnings higher in the north than in the south. Full-time workers in North Hampshire earn approximately £140 a week more than full-time workers in South East Hampshire. This has an impact upon service costs.

Black and Ethnic Minority Population

At 2.2% of the total population, Hampshire has a much smaller proportion of its population within ethnic groups than England (9.1%) and a lower rate than the South East Region (4.9%). The proportion of Hampshire's population within ethnic minority groups is uniformly low across the whole county, with only Rushmoor having more than four percent from all other backgrounds.

Generally the ethnic minority population of Hampshire is dispersed, meaning there are few or no established communities.

Indian, Pakistani, and Chinese made up the largest non-white ethnic groups in Rushmoor; Indian, Black Caribbean and Chinese were the largest groups in Basingstoke. However, each of these groups amounted to less than one per cent of the district populations. Numerically, the only two groups to exceed one thousand people are the 1,190 people of Indian ethnic origin in Basingstoke, and 1,010 people also of Indian ethnic origin in Eastleigh.

These percentages should be viewed in the context of the national averages. In 2001, 7.77 per cent of the population of England were from the ethnic minorities (excluding those of mixed race), compared with 6.19 per cent in 1991. Indians made up over 2 per cent of the population of England in 2001, and Pakistanis 1.44 per cent. Nowhere in Hampshire therefore, approaches the national average proportion of their populations in the ethnic minority groups.

Fig 5: Population by Ethnic Origin 2001 (percentages)


Area	Total Population	White	Mixed	Asian or Asian British	Black or Black British	Chinese or other ethnic group
		Percentage of people in ethnic groups
Basingstoke & Deane	152,573	96.56	1.03	1.23	0.57	0.61
East Hampshire	109,274	98.35	0.65	0.40	0.19	0.41
Eastleigh	116,169	97.42	0.70	1.18	0.18	0.51
Fareham	107,977	98.26	0.60	0.48	0.15	0.51
Gosport	76,415	98.34	0.61	0.46	0.21	0.36
Hart	83,505	97.69	0.72	0.81	0.26	0.53
Havant	116,849	98.54	0.57	0.40	0.15	0.34
New Forest	169,331	98.86	0.50	0.25	0.12	0.29
Rushmoor	90,987	95.57	1.08	1.75	0.63	0.97
Test Valley	109,801	97.93	0.65	0.74	0.20	0.48
Winchester	107,222	97.84	65	0.69	0.25	0.56
Hampshire (HCC)	1,240,103	97.80	0.70	0.74	0.27	0.50

Source: Office for National Statistics, 2001 Census

Appendix P: Record of Consultation

Policy Framework Consultation

Group Consulted

Health

Hampshire Probation

Hampshire County Council / SSD

Basingstoke & Deane

East Hants

Eastleigh

Hart & Rushmoor

Havant

New Forest

Winchester

Test Valley

Fareham

Gosport

Core Strategy Group

Drug Action Team

Service User Reference Group (SURG)

Hampshire Community Strategy Partnership

SP Strategy Group

SP Team

Strategy Consultation

Forum

County Core Group

Core Strategy Group

District Consultation

Stakeholders / CIF

Strategic Partners

Appendix Q: References

Hampshire Teenage Pregnancy Partnership 2004 -2006 County Action Plan Summary Version

SSD Supported Housing Commissioning Plan

Hampshire Community Strategy

Hampshire Corporate Strategy

A Profile of Hampshire

Census Statistics

DAT BME Needs Assessment

Glossary of Terms

AA Administering Authority. This is the Social Services

Department of Hampshire County Council.

Accommodation Housing-related support service, which is specifically linked to

Based service identified accommodation, where loss of occupancy means loss of support service.

Accommodation- A housing-related support service, which is linked to specific

Based service with accommodation & offers a floating support, resettlement Floating support outreach service, as part of the overall package. For example, a

hostel or supported housing with intensive on-site support, which also offers a move-on or resettlement service.

Accreditation A process for assessing the viability and competence of an

organisation and formally recognising their ability to provide

services.

BME Black and Minority Ethnic Groups.

Best Value Central Government's value and quality policy.

CAG Cross Authority Group.

CCG County Core Group

CIF County Inclusive forum

Client Group A classification applied to a person according to their support

needs. A person may fall into a number of classifications.

DAAT Drug and Alcohol Action Team

DCG District Core Group

DoH Department of Health

DIF District \inclusive \forum

Extra Care

Floating support A housing-related support service that is not tied to any specific accommodation.

HAAS Housing Accommodation and Advice Service

HC Housing Corporation

HIA Home Improvement Agency, often also known as `Care and Repair' services. These are floating support services available across different tenures designed to enable people to remain in their own homes for as long as they wish and to promote independent living. HIA services are usually focused around practical support related to the accommodation - such as maintenance and adaptations - but often also provide a wider range of services such as advice, advocacy and signposting to other support services.

HIOWA Hampshire and Isle of Wight Authorities Association

Interim Contract SP contract issued with effect from 31 March 2003 -First review

Lifeline Alarm Service

NHS National Health Service

ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

PCT Primary Care Trust

Performance

Indicator Specific information used in a planned way to measure and

(PI) assess performance.

SECOND DRAFT APPENDICES

Pipeline service A service that was planned to come online after 1st April 2003, but which had a firm funding commitment before then.

Provider Organisation providing a Supporting People service.

QAF The Quality Assessment Framework for Supporting People -

QAF defines service objectives (core and supplementary) against which Providers can carry out self-assessments.

Registered Care Care services registered under the auspices of CSCI

RHB Regional Housing Board

ROCC Umbrella group for voluntary sector Providers

RSL A Registered Social Landlord registered with the Housing

Corporation as a housing association. Most, but not all, RSL's are housing associations and not all housing associations are RSLs.

Service Review A review of the strategic relevance, quality, performance and cost-effectiveness of a Supporting People service prior to the expiry of its contract.

Service users The term "Service Users" is used throughout to refer also to Carers and advocates where applicable. It is important that, in consulting and involving Service Users, Providers also seek the views of Carers and Advocates where Service Users may not be able to participate fully.

Service User Group Classification applied to a person according to their support

needs. A person may fall into a number of classifications

SHA Strategic Health Authority

SHMG Supported Housing Management Grant

Sole traders Sole traders are individual support Providers who are not working for a charity, housing association, limited company or other type of organisation but are working for themselves, often in their own home, and not employing any housing-related support staff. Examples of sole traders are supported lodgings or adult placements where there is no overarching organisation.

SP Supporting People

SSD Social Services Department

Steady State Post first review period

Stakeholder Individual, organization or body which has an interest in SP

Supporting People Programme to deliver housing-related support services to

vulnerable people through a single funding stream, administered by local authorities according to the needs of people in their area.

Supporting People

Grant The grant provided to local authorities to pay for the costs of

support services from April 2003.

Transitional The transitional system for the payment of support costs through

Housing the housing benefit system. This system ended on the introduction Benefit of Supporting People in April 2003

SECOND DRAFT APPENDICES

Client Group Abbreviations :

DV	Women at risk of domestic violence
MH	People with mental health problems
YP @ R	Young people at risk
YPLC	Young people leaving care
OP	Older persons with support needs
PD	People with a physical or sensory disability
OPMH	Older persons with mental health problems / dementia
FE	Frail elderly
Gen	Generic
HFSN	Homeless families with support needs
Off's	Offenders or people at risk of offending
SH	Single homeless with support needs
SM	Substance misuse
TP	Teenage parents
LD	People with learning disabilities
Ref's	Refugees

CONSULTATION

Hampshire Supporting People Five Year Strategy 2005 - 2010

Please complete and return to either :

[email protected]

Or :

Sue Robbins,

Supporting People

Capitol House

12-13 Bridge Street

Winchester

SO23 0HL

Consultation - Section ONE

1. Is the structure of the document clear and accessible ?

2. Has the consultation carried out been inclusive of all interested parties ?

3. Are the overarching objectives specific measurable accurate realistic and timely (SMART) ?

4. Are there additional objectives we need to consider / include ?

Consultation - Section TWO

1. Are you aware of any developments or new services that have not been listed in this section ?

2. Do you have any suggestions to contribute to the further development of HIA's and handyperson services in Hampshire ?

Consultation - Section THREE

2. Can we improve on the SP decision-making process at the County and District levels?

3. Does the improved communications structure adequately include all the various groups and agencies: is it too onerous ?

4. Can we improve involvement of Service Users?

5. Are the links clear and concise / relevant ?

6. Are there other funding sources we need to explore ?

Consultation - Section FOUR

1. Do you think the emphasis on prevention is correct?

2. Should there be a different funding structure for long and short term services?

3. Do you agree with the concept of Prevention Statements ?

4. Should we include Prevention Statements for all SP Client Groups within the strategy?

5. Is there anything else you would like to see included within the Prevention Statement?

Consultation - Section FIVE

1. Do you come to any conclusions about the supply of services not covered in the commentary?

2. Which services would you like to see continue to be accommodation based? (See Policy Framework)

3. Do you think we should maintain a diversity of service Providers or attempt to achieve better value for money through economies of scale?

4. Do the conclusions of the needs analysis support your views of unmet need or do you have other information ?

5. Do you think the idea of PSG's provides a solid base for the discussion of gap and needs analysis ?

Consultation - Section SIX

1. Do you accept the criteria we are using for prioritising existing bids?

2. Do you have any comments on any of the Client Group Statements?

3. Do you think that we should continue to consider previous priorities for new development outside of the strategic review process?

Consultation - Section SEVEN

1. What service specific objectives and targets do you think should be set to ensure the delivery of measurable outcomes ?

2. Is it acceptable for the period between service reviews to differ as a result of the introduction of the Strategic review process? ( i.e the period may be extended beyond 3 ½ years, or reduced below 2 ½ years.)?

Do you agree with the proposal to move towards Client Group based reviews ?3.

Consultation - Section EIGHT

1. Do you agree with the current timetable of strategic reviews or do you think the timetable needs to be ordered differently ? If so please advise proposed changes.

2. Do you think adequate time has been allowed to enable all stakeholders to participate in the strategic review process ?

3. Many service user groups receive services through homeless routes. Do you agree that homelessness services should be strategically reviewed first?

4. Should we move away from the current Client Group definitions ?

5. Which services do you think should be locally designated as cross authority services ?

6. Annual objectives - Do you agree these objectives or wish to see alternatives?

This content is archived

Contents

Section ONE: INTRODUCTION

Section TWO: PROGRESS TO DATE

Section THREE: PARTNERSHIPS AND COMMUNICATION

Section FOUR: POLICY AND PREVENTION

Section FIVE : DATA ANALYSIS

Section SIX: THE COMMISSIONING PROCESS

Section SEVEN: MONITORING AND REVIEWS

Section EIGHT: FIVE YEAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Strategic Reviews

Strategic Review Action Plan

8.5 Cross Authority Statement

Health

Providers / Stakeholders

Social Services Department

CONSULTATION