Research and analysis

Summary: Local Authority Insight Wave 35: Supported accommodation: qualitative interviews with local authorities

Published 18 December 2018

By Dr Jonah Bury and Dr Ceri Davies.

This report presents findings from the Local Authority Insight Survey (LAIS) Wave 35, focused on long-term supported accommodation (LTSA). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Housing Benefit (HB) staff and/or housing commissioners in 22 local authorities (LAs) across England, Scotland and Wales to explore how LTSA is managed, particularly with respect to cost-control.

Background

The LAIS is a series of research projects with revenue and benefits managers (or those in a similar position) at LAs in England, Scotland and Wales. It is commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to gain regular insights in the ways LAs manage the administration of HB and their views of current and future policy changes.

This research was intended to provide perspectives on LTSA and the processes and roles of LA teams in managing cost-control specific to LTSA and specialised supported accommodation (SSA). It confirms and expands upon findings of previous government and third sector reviews into the provision of LTSA and SSA.

The landscape of LTSA is extremely diverse; providing a range of housing options predominantly for working age people and in different LA areas these options are managed and delivered by a range of different providers. In this research these categories of provider were:

• direct provision (where housing stock is owned by the LA)
• through a housing association (HA) (where the HA manages the accommodation but may or may not be the landlord)
• through a private/charity or other organisation (where this organisation manages the accommodation but may or may not be the landlord)

The majority of LTSA residents claim HB. The majority of LTSA is non-LA owned, meaning providers (either HA or private/charity or other organisation) deliver these services and charge the tenant for it through rents and service charges, which are covered by HB.

Methodology

The research used the sample frame from the LAIS of revenue and benefits managers at 383 LAs. Screening emails were sent to benefit managers from the NatCen research team to help develop the sample criteria.

The research then aimed for a diverse sample to generate a range of perspectives, and important sampling criteria included:

• the majority type of provider in a LA area
• geography

A total of 50 LAs responded to the screening email with responses to the above and indicating whether they were willing to take part in an interview. For all LAs that opted in, a mutually convenient time and date were arranged to conduct the interview and 31 individual staff members took part. The final sample interviewed for this research was made up of 31 respondents from 22 separate LAs in England, Scotland and Wales.

Each interview was conducted with a topic guide designed in collaboration with DWP. Interviews lasted around 30 minutes, although there was some variation, for example one interview lasted 20 minutes and another 45 minutes. Thirty interviews were digitally recorded with participants’ consent with one respondent preferring to provide a written response.

Main findings

Managing cost-control

LAs described a range of processes that facilitated cost-control of LTSA.

Three were particularly prominent:

• negotiation
• scrutiny
• challenge

Scrutiny of rents and service charges and challenging the provider to clarify and/or justify the proposed costs were important elements to managing cost control. Scrutiny and challenge framed the negotiating process: in order for the LA to enter into discussions about rents and service charges, it needs to have an understanding of the overall costs and that all relevant information is provided to ensure this.

Moreover, whilst it is not mandatory for LAs to monitor the quality of service charges provided to tenants that are funded through HB, where they did, it was identified as a factor which supported cost-control.

Internal collaboration between LA teams (HB and commissioners), and collaboration between different LAs to share information on schemes and charges was also identified as particularly useful to potentially enable an LA to lower rent and service charges. Conversely, where resources to carry out non-mandatory monitoring were limited and collaboration was uncommon, this impacted LAs’ ability to conduct this monitoring.

Good and substandard providers

LA perceptions of how providers operate with respect to rents and service charges fell into 2 contrasting categories whose variations in approach were considered to help or hinder LA processes of cost-control. The main features that characterised good practice and substandard providers related to:

• the detail and clarity of evidence provided when submitting rent and service charges
• the service charges included as eligible for HB
• their responsiveness when communicating with LAs, for example, good practice providers seek to be proactive and responsive when dealing with LAs – this entails regular communication as well as being responsive to LA needs, for example finding innovative ways of reducing service charges to ease the strain on LA budgets – in contrast, substandard providers tend to provide vague information on rents and service charges and claim ineligible and unreasonable service charges

Sheltered housing and SSA

In most LAs, rent and service charges for LA-owned units tended to be lower. The reasons for this included LAs not charging for warden services or deciding against increases in service charges, as this would negatively impact on residents not in receipt of HB.

Across all LAs, rent and service charges were higher for SSA compared to other supported accommodation schemes. The main reasons for this were:

• higher staffing costs
• demand outstripping supply
• significant costs associated with replacement and maintenance of household items and client-specific adaptations

Overarching themes

A range of barriers and facilitators were identified that helped or hindered management and cost-control of LTSA.

Resources

A lack of resources around money, time and capacity formed particular challenges for LAs with regards to monitoring the quality of service charges eligible for HB and scrutinising schemes for LTSA and SSA. However, whilst the absence of resources did not appear to pose a problem for commissioning teams, LAs generally had no oversight over non-commissioned schemes.

Collaboration and information sharing

Collaboration and information sharing within and between LAs facilitated cost-control with respect to both negotiating and monitoring rents and service charges. In particular when HB teams did not systematically monitor service charges, regular communication with other teams ensured that HB teams were alert to any issues and could respond accordingly. LAs that had established channels of communication with neighbouring LAs also ensured consistency around rent and service charges. Challenges around cost-control arose when LAs worked in isolation of one another. A potential consequence of this could be that HB teams paid HB for services that were already funded elsewhere. Similarly, a lack of communication across LAs could lead to identical schemes costing more in one LA compared to a neighbouring LA.

Knowledge and guidance

Staff knowledge and understanding around service charge eligibility enabled cost-control. Experience in the role and adequate training facilitated an effective level of knowledge. However, a perceived lack of clarity and ‘grey area’ in the regulation and guidance over service charge eligibility complicated LA decision-making for some respondents.

A lack of knowledge around what constituted ‘reasonable’ charges was another barrier for cost-control. Some respondents noted a perceived gap in financial understanding with respect to providers’ rationale for high costs, which would enable them to more effectively make decisions about accepting or challenging that rationale.

Data and evidence

Having detailed information on comparable schemes provided LAs with leverage when negotiating with providers. This increased the likelihood of providers reducing rent and/or service charges. This was particularly the case if similar schemes were available for tenants to move into. However, a main barrier to benchmarking for LAs was the lack of a standardised template sent by providers with a breakdown rent and service charges.

Type of interaction

Face-to-face meetings with providers to discuss the proposed rent and service charges had the advantage of avoiding misunderstandings around reasonableness and eligibility of service charges later in the negotiation process. It is also meant that negotiations could advance more quickly rather than being drawn out and costing resources