Consultation outcome

Domestic abuse safe accommodation funding allocation: consultation response

Updated 12 February 2021

1. Introduction

Domestic abuse is a heinous crime and this government is committed to ensuring victims and survivors get the support they need to rebuild their lives. This includes the provision of sufficient safe accommodation with the right specialist support to ensure those fleeing from devastating abuse have somewhere safe to go, including those from minority groups.

To address current gaps, the Domestic Abuse Bill currently before Parliament includes a new duty relating to the provision of support to victims and their children within safe accommodation, placing requirements on Tier One authorities (County Councils, Metropolitan and Unitary Authorities and the Greater London Authority) across England to appoint a local partnership board, prepare and publish strategies based on robust needs assessments and give effect to these strategies.

It also places a duty on Tier Two authorities (District, City and Borough Councils) to cooperate, as far as reasonably practicable, with their relevant Tier One authority. Subject to the successful passage of the Bill through parliament, the new duty will come into force in 2021.

We have worked closely with stakeholders to identify the cost of delivering the new statutory duty. We would like to thank everyone that has continued to support us through engaging and providing vital information in determining these costs.

On 25 November the government announced £125 million of funding in 2021-22 to enable local authorities to meet these new duties. In October we consulted on the approach to allocating this funding and this response sets out the final allocations methodology, including local authorities individual allocations.

2. Executive summary

On 5 October MHCLG launched a 6 week consultation on the proposed allocation of funding for the new duty relating to the provision of support within safe accommodation for victims of domestic abuse, including their children.

The consultation sought views on two elements of the costs associated with the duty:

1. Support in safe accommodation: cost of commissioned support services
2. Administrative new burdens: local authority costs of delivering the new functions under the duty

The consultation proposed different allocation approaches for the above elements, considering the different requirements Tier One and Tier Two local authorities will need to carry out.

All responses to the consultation have been carefully considered and are reflected in the government’s response. The most common themes raised by respondents have been reflected in the summary data and statistics set out throughout this document.

Who has responded

The consultation has been of particular interest for local authorities across England (and their representatives), as well as domestic abuse safe accommodation organisations.

In order to understand the views of different types of respondents, we asked respondents to identify themselves by two questions:

Are you answering the consultation as?

a. An individual with personal interest, b. An individual on behalf of and organisation, c. an Upper Tier Local Authority, d. A Lower Tier Local Authority, e. Other

From the list below, where are you or your organisation based?

a. London, b. South East, c. North West, d. East of England, e. West Midlands, f. South West, g. Yorkshire and the Humber, h. East Midlands, i. North East, j. National

The consultation received 112 responses. Unless stated otherwise, the figures set out in this document represent the number of responses received for each of the questions and not the number of responses received to the consultation overall.

Type of respondent	No. of responses
An individual with personal interest	3
An individual on behalf of an organisation	32
An upper tier local authority	47
A lower tier local authority	23
Other	7

Region	No. of responses
London	14
South East	17
North West	22
East of England	13
West Midlands	12
South West	11
Yorkshire and the Humber	5
East Midlands	8
North East	3
National	7

Main findings

Overall, the majority of those who responded to the consultation agreed with the proposals set out. However there were some responses that suggested additional elements should be factored into the allocation formulas to reflect the anticipated varying level of support needs as well as the differing levels of admin burden local authorities are expected to face.

Support costs

There was mixed agreement to the proposal to apply a population + labour cost adjustment formula for the support costs.

Many recognised the limitations in terms of the current availability of consistent data on the demand for safe accommodation support at a local level, that could be applied fairly across all local authorities.

However, there were also some concerns in regard to the simplicity of the formula and the risk that areas with, for whatever reason, a high demand on domestic abuse safe accommodation support may not be adequately funded.

We recognise some areas will currently have more demand on their services than others and a key factor for this is the inconsistent availability of provision across the country. This can result in areas with established services facing additional pressure through supporting victims that were unable to find suitable safe accommodation closer to home, or friends and family.

The new duty on local authorities is being introduced to address this issue, supporting local authorities to ensure there is adequate support available within their locality based on the needs identified. We anticipate this will reduce this additional pressure on some areas due to others not being able to put in place suitable provision to date.

We do, however, want to ensure all local authorities are appropriately funded in delivering their duty. We therefore propose to include deprivation as an element in the support costs allocation formula, as a result of the responses to this consultation. For further details, please see section 3.1.

Labour Cost Adjustment

MHCLG further considered the use of the Labour Cost Adjustment (LCA), taking into consideration responses to the consultation. As a result, it was determined that applying the updated Area Cost Adjustment as a whole would be more appropriate and fair in the distribution of funds.

To help ensure consistency for local authorities, MHCLG will apply the upper-tier relative needs formula as used in local authority COVID-19 funding allocations. The relative needs formula takes in to account the size of the local population, relative deprivation and area cost adjustment. A full breakdown of the formula can be found in the allocations technical paper at Annex A.

Administrative new burden costs

Tier One

There was some disagreement to the proposed approach of an equal split, with concerns raised around the varying levels of work expected to be done at a local level by authorities of different sizes. Government has listened to views and recognises the importance of reflecting how the make up of authorities can impact the new burden being placed on Tier One authorities.

Responses to the consultation identified population as an appropriate factor to apply across Tier One administrative new burden costs, which MHCLG will include. To further ensure consistency for Tier One authorities, MHCLG will also apply the upper-tier relative needs formula in line with the support costs, to Tier One admin costs.

There were also some concerns raised in regard to the responsibility of this duty being at Tier One level instead of Tier Two.

MHCLG previously consulted on whether or not the duty should be placed on Tier One authorities, and the majority of respondents agreed this was the right approach. MHCLG will not be amending this element of the duty and will allocate the support cost funding to Tier One authorities as the responsible body.

Tier Two

There was some disagreement from the responses on whether Tier Two costs should be allocated based mainly on an equal split but there was little agreement on the right alternative approach.

As MCHLG anticipates the duty on Tier Two authorities to cooperate will require a similar level of administration across the country irrespective of the local make up and, responses to the consultation do not indicate an agreed appropriate alternative – the admin new burdens costs for Tier Two authorities will be based on the proposal set out in the consultation of an equal split. As set out above, the LCA element will be replaced by applying the full ACA.

Funding for Tier Two administrative new burdens funding will therefore be made up of an equal split x ACA. A full breakdown of the formula can be found in the allocations technical paper at Annex A.

Next steps

The outcome of the Spending Review, announced by government on 25 November, included £125 million new burden funding for the new duty for 2021-22. A full breakdown of draft allocations by local authority area can be found at the attached spreadsheet, Annex B.

We would encourage individual authorities to check their allocation is as they expect based on the final formulas set out in this document. If an authority has any query about how their funding allocation has been calculated then please contact domesticabuse.review@communities.gov.uk.

As set out in the consultation document, MHCLG is committed to undertaking a post implementation review of the funding for the duty two years from commencement, including the allocations methodology.

3. Consultation outcomes

3.1. Allocation method for support costs

In the consultation, we proposed the allocation method for support costs for the duty would be based on a formula made up of population and the Labour Costs Adjustment. We asked:

Do you agree with the proposed approach for allocation of support costs (population based formula x labour costs adjustment)?

Should the labour costs adjustment factor be taken from a) the existing or b) the updated ACA?

Are there other factors that should be included in the formula?

The majority of respondents agreed with the proposed approach for the allocation of support costs, recognising the limitations of currently available data to demonstrate the varying level of need of safe accommodation support and, that can be applied consistently at local authority level as part of a formula.

Do you agree with the proposed approach for allocation of support costs (population-based formula + labour costs adjustment)?

Answer	No. of responses (%)
Yes	69 (65%)
No	37 (35%)

However 35% disagreed, with some respondents viewing the proposed allocation as too simplistic and that it does not go far enough to address the varying numbers of people seeking safe accommodation support across the country. There were two main areas respondents believed should be included as part of the support costs, these were:

• The need to consider specialist provision within an area and / or demographics as a factor – recognising the higher costs specialist provision can face.
• The need to consider deprivation as a factor – to reflect the impact it has on the level of domestic abuse prevalence.

Whilst we recognise the importance of specialist safe accommodation providers – services providing specialist and dedicated support to victims with unique and / or complex needs, such as those from BAME communities, those with disabilities, identifying as LGBTQ+ and / or those with drug and alcohol support needs - we do not believe allocating funding to local authorities on the basis of the location of current specialist safe accommodation services supports the duty’s aims of ensuring more consistency of provision across the country.

To do so could, unintendedly, create larger gaps between those authorities currently with adequate levels of specialist provision and those that do not. We will be clear in statutory guidance that specialist services are vital and commissioning authorities under the duty will need to ensure the support provided accurately reflects the needs of victims within the area, recognising that a ‘one size fits all’ approach is not appropriate.

We have also considered whether we could give any weighting to demographic factors as a proxy for the demand for specialist provision. However, specialist provision provides vital support to a range of victim groups and demographic data is not available for all these groups. For example, these services provide dedicated tailored support to victims that require support with drug and alcohol misuse, LGBTQ+ victims, BAME victims, and victims with various types of disabilities (both physical and mental).

Applying demographic factors would not be able to capture the needs of victims where no data is available, and inadvertently prioritise some victim groups over others. In addition, we do not have sound evidence of the additional cost of specialist provision which would make it very difficult to assess the right weighting to apply to each demographic.

A number of responses (28%) suggested the need for an element of deprivation to be included in the formula, on the basis that it can act as a factor driving prevalence of domestic abuse incidences. There is some evidence to suggest a correlation between deprivation and the prevalence of domestic abuse, although it is not conclusive. In light of the support for including deprivation in the responses put forward, we will include a deprivation factor in the support costs allocation formula.

81% favoured taking the Labour Cost Adjustment (LCA) factor from the updated Area Cost Adjustment (ACA), over the existing one, with many noting the importance of using the most up to date information.

Should the labour costs adjustments be taken from the existing or updated ACA?

Answer	No. of responses (%)
Labour Costs Adjustment factor should be taken from the updated ACA	75 (81%)
Labour Costs Adjustment factor should be taken from the existing ACA	18 (19%)

However upon further consideration and taking into account responses – where there appeared to be some misunderstanding in regard to the proposal only intending to apply the LCA factor taken from the ACA, and not the updated ACA itself - we believe that there is reason to apply all elements of the ACA which also take into account travel time and remoteness.

As a result, the ACA will be applied as a whole instead of only applying the LCA element for all costs associated with the duty.

We support the new ACA as it considers both wage / premises costs and the Impact of accessibility (population sparsity/density) and remoteness on the costs of providing services

To ensure consistency of local government funding, MHCLG will apply the Upper-Tier Relative Needs Formula in line with local authority COVID-19 funding. The relative needs formula takes in to account the size of the local population, relative deprivation and area cost adjustment. See the Allocations Technical Paper at Annex A for further details on the allocations formula.

We also sought views on where funding for the support costs should go to, we asked:

Do you agree that funding element of support costs should be allocated to Tier 1 authorities only?

Do you agree that funding element of support costs should be allocated to Tier 1 authorities only?

Answer	No. of responses (%)
Yes	76 (76%)
No	24 (24%)

76% agreed to allocate the support costs to Tier One authorities only. Although 24% disagreed, there was little consensus in the response comments as to an alternative approach, but there was a clear request for the need for both Tiers to work closely together in delivering the duty.

We recognise the vital role Tier Two authorities will play in implementing the duty and agree it is extremely important that Tier One authorities work closely with Tier Two authorities within their area.

We will allocate the funding for support costs to Tier One authorities, as the responsible body under the duty and make clear in statutory guidance the need for Tier One authorities to work closely with their relevant Tier Two authorities, including through ensuring representation on their Local Partnership Board.

3.2. Allocation method for administrative new burden costs

We proposed applying an equal split plus an LCA factor for the administrative new burdens costs, that is the costs faced by local authorities to deliver the duty. This approach was proposed for both Tier One and Tier Two authorities. We asked:

Do you agree with the proposed approach for allocation of the administrative new burden for Tier 1 authorities (equal split +labour costs adjustment)?

Do you agree with the proposed approach for allocation of the administrative new burden for Tier 2 authorities (equal split + labour costs adjustment)?

Are there other factors that should be included in the formula?

Tier One

Do you agree with the proposed approach for allocation of the administrative new burden for Tier 1 authorities?

Answer	No. of responses (%)
Yes	68 (67%)
No	34 (33%)

Whilst the majority of responses agreed, over a third did not believe an equal split across Tier One authorities was appropriate in allocating the administrative new burdens funding. Almost 30% of responses highlighted the need for consideration to be given to the size of an authority area and how this would impact on the volume of work they would need to undertake in order to fulfil their duty.

Tier 1 authorities with significantly higher populations will be required to consult and engage with a higher number of service providers and Tier 2 authorities.

To ensure larger Tier One authorities have the appropriate level of support in place to fulfil their requirements, we will include a population element into the allocations for Tier One admin new burden costs.

We have also further considered applying the same formula across all funding to be allocated to Tier One authorities, to support consistency, and will therefore be aligning the allocation for admin new burdens with that of the support costs.

We will therefore allocate a single pot of funding for Tier One authorities, combining both the support costs and the administrative new burdens and, applying the Upper-Tier Relative Needs Formula, as used in local authority COVID-19 funding allocations, which takes into account population, deprivation and the Area Cost Adjustment.

See Annex A for further details on the allocations formula.

Tier Two

Do you agree with the proposed approach for allocation of the administrative new burden for Tier 2 authorities?

Answer	No. of responses (%)
Yes	61 (69%)
No	27 (31%)

Almost a third of respondents did not agree with our proposal to apply an equal split + the LCA for Tier Two admin new burden costs. However, there was little agreement amongst responses on an alternative approach – with 7% suggesting the need for elements such as deprivation, homicide rates and health equalities to be included and 6% suggesting the burdens will be higher for London boroughs and therefore should be reflected in allocations.

As there was little agreement and, MHCLG’s anticipation that the duty to cooperate being placed on Tier Two authorities should not vary greatly in the volume of work required by each local authority, we will allocate Tier Two admin new burden costs on a similar basis to that which was consulted on.

As set out above, MHCLG will replace the LCA element of allocations with the ACA as a whole. We will therefore allocate Tier Two admin costs by applying an equal split x ACA formula. See Annex A for a full breakdown as to how this will be applied.

Is there anything else which was not mentioned in relation to the proposed allocation method and should be considered?

Currently commissioned services

There were some concerns in regard to what happens to currently commissioned safe accommodation services, particularly where they are commissioned at Tier Two level, once the duty is implemented given it will take some time for Needs Assessments and strategies to be completed.

MHCLG is clear in that it does not expect local authorities to stop funding these services as a result of the introduction of the duty. Authorities will receive funding for support costs for the first year of delivery and it is therefore our expectation that this funding supports any transitional period needed at a local level.

Tier One authorities should make arrangements to appropriately fund Tier Two authorities, in two tier areas, to ensure victims can continue to access services while needs assessments and strategies are in development.

On 5 October, MHCLG announced £6 million Capacity Building Funding to Tier One authorities to support in preparing for the new duty. Such preparations include establishing the most appropriate way to transition into commissioning under the new duty, including agreeing arrangements with relevant Tier Two authorities.

Ringfence

A number of responses to the consultation raised the need to ensure funding for the duty is ringfenced.

In line with the government’s general position, MHCLG will not be ringfencing this funding. However, local authorities will be under a legal obligation (subject to successful passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill through Parliament) to provide vital support within safe accommodation to meet the needs in their areas, and report back to central government that they have met these obligations.

Capital funding

The need for capital funding to support authorities put in place more safe accommodation provision also came up in response to the consultation. We anticipate that by ensuring adequate funding for the support to be provided within safe accommodation, it will attract more providers and or / investors into establishing safe accommodation.

We will however, review the funding for this duty in future years to ensure it fully supports local authorities in delivering their duty.

Istanbul Convention

Some responses also highlighted the need for government to ensure a specified number of safe accommodation support services are in place across the country, in line with the Istanbul Convention.

It is important that support within safe accommodation is delivered based on the varying needs of victims across the country, which is why under the duty, Tier One authorities will need to prepare and publish strategies based on robust needs assessments, setting out the steps they will take in order to meet the needs identified. MHCLG believe this approach will ensure adequate levels of the right type of support will be made available to victims across the country.

Priority need

Some concerns were raised in regard to the impact of the extension of priority need to victims of domestic abuse, under the Domestic Abuse Bill, on Tier Two authorities (as the housing authority). The approaches set out in this response to the consultation are solely in regard to costs associated with the new duty on local authorities to deliver support within safe accommodation. It does not apply to other elements of the Domestic Abuse Bill.

The proposed allocation of new burdens assessment will be completed, in response to the extension of priority need to victims of domestic abuse, separately. All local authorities will be provided with funding to cover the additional cost of meeting this.

Annex A: Technical Note

Introduction

The Domestic Abuse Bill continues to make its way through Parliament. The Bill includes a new duty on the provision of support within safe accommodation, placing requirements on Tier One authorities (County Councils, Metropolitan and Unitary Authorities and the Greater London Authority) across England to convene a local partnership board, develop and publish strategies based on robust needs assessments and give effect to these strategies.

It also places a duty on Tier Two authorities (District, City and Borough Councils) to cooperate, as far as reasonably practicable, with their relevant Tier One authority.

Subject to the successful passage of the Bill, the new duty will come into force in 2021. This technical note sets out the methodology for allocating a total of £124.5 million in funding to local authorities to discharge the statutory duties placed upon them.

The total pot for Tier One local authorities covers both the support and administrative duties and is allocated using the same methodology. The total pot for Tier Two local authorities covers the new administrative burden of co-operating with the respective lead Tier One authority so far as reasonably practicable.

Using local authority survey responses, we estimate that approximately 94% of the cost will fall on Tier One local authorities, and 6% on Tier Two local authorities. We allocate this funding to the respective Tier One and Tier Two authorities based on this split in two stages:

1. We allocate £117,030,000 to Tier One local authorities
2. We allocate £7,470,000 to Tier Two local authorities

Tier One local authorities allocation methodology

The duty requires Tier One local authorities to commission support services as well as fulfil the administrative functions placed upon them.

We use the upper tier Relative Needs Formula (RNF) as used in tranche three of local authority COVID-19 funding to derive the allocation share for each Tier One local authority. This allocation formula captures funding for both the support and administrative elements of the duty.

We ensure that no local authority receives less than £63,000 – which represents a reasonable minimum allocation in line with the cost of the minimum FTE required to fulfil the statutory duties. After any uplifts to the minima, we re-allocate the remaining funding in the same way using the upper tier RNF to derive the final allocation shares for Tier One authorities. The upper tier relative needs formula incorporates an area’s population, area cost adjustment (ACA) and deprivation and is calculated as follows:

The allocation share for each local authority (LA) is derived as the proportion of the total RNF across all upper tier local authorities:

The shares for Tier One authorities can be found in the COVID-19 funding allocations spreadsheet and are represented by the “Upper Tier Relative Needs Formula” column in the “ACA and Covid RNF details” worksheet.

Further detail on the upper tier RNF and its components (including the ACA) can be found in Annex A of the Technical note on allocation of October COVID-19 local government finance package.

Missing data

There was no RNF data available for West Northamptonshire and North Northamptonshire unitary authorities which will replace Northamptonshire County Council and the 7 district councils from April 2021.

We took the approach of applying the allocation methodology outlined above to calculate the allocation the outgoing Northamptonshire County Council would have received. This allocation is then split between the two new unitary authorities replacing the outgoing county council.

Tier Two local authorities allocation methodology

Tier Two local authorities will be under the legal obligation to cooperate with the lead Tier One authority so far as is reasonably practicable.

We calculate the allocation share for Tier Two authorities by equally splitting the funding pot and applying the lower tier ACA to the corresponding local authority. Data for the lower tier ACA used in this allocation can be found in the same worksheet linked above.

The allocation share for each Tier Two local authority (LA) is derived as the proportion of the total ACA across all lower tier local authorities:

We allocate funding to West Northamptonshire and North Northamptonshire by calculating the sum of what would have been allocated to their constituent outgoing district councils.

For West Northamptonshire this is: Daventry District, Northampton and South Northants.

For North Northamptonshire this is: Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby and East Northants.