Cash-strapped local authorities may be tempted to scale back or cut housing related support services, but this will only cost more in the long run, argues Andrew Church
It is no secret that local authorities across the UK are under immense financial pressure.
Early last month, Birmingham City Council signed off multiple, devastating cuts to its services and a 21% rise in council tax over two years.
Nearby my home county of Cambridgeshire, Suffolk County Council and Peterborough City Council have made similar catastrophic cuts, and have announced they are ceasing all funding, or dramatically cutting Housing Related Support (HRS).
To put it simply, HRS provides services that contribute towards enabling vulnerable people to live independently and participate in their community.
For example, through HRS funding, an individual who is homeless can access suitable, stable and safe accommodation; a young person who has suffered the death of a parent would be housed, supported and cared for; and somebody who has mental health problems can get the stability they need through housing and support.
Without HRS, these vital support mechanisms, that offer a lifeline to so many in need, no longer exist. Surely that is unacceptable.
I find it incredibly disappointing that HRS is not a statutory responsibility for local authorities. As a result, and due to being simultaneously compounded by enormous financial strain, local authorities are reverting to a ‘have to deliver’ rather than a ‘should deliver’ mentality.
Suffolk and Peterborough’s decisions to cut or end HRS is also likely to have a knock-on effect in neighbouring counties such as Cambridgeshire.
Cost benefit
Providers that have services across Suffolk, Peterborough and Cambridgeshire could be forced to move all supported individuals to Cambridgeshire, which in turn, puts a huge amount of pressure on existing services, and the local vulnerable people who are being supported.
At CHS Group, we have developed a ‘cost benefit analysis’ tool using meticulous methodology from New Economy Manchester to justify HRS spending.
Essentially, the tool maps out what cost savings there are likely to be to public services, such as the local authority, Jobcentre, NHS, police and prisons, if HRS is delivered.
We gather this data by speaking to individuals who have been supported by HRS, and identifying what could have happened in their lives without the dedicated support they received.
Could they have spent more time unemployed for example, and relied on the Jobcentre for longer? What if they needed to access mental health support in hospital for something that could have been diagnosed sooner? Or maybe they might have committed a crime if it wasn’t for HRS?
It should come as no surprise that the cost of providing HRS is minuscule in comparison to potential outcomes if this support is not delivered. In fact, we have found that for every pound invested in HRS, there is a saving to the public of four pounds in total.
Cutting HRS is therefore a false economy – costs to the public purse that would otherwise never be generated, are multiplied and intensified in the short and long-term. Imagine squeezing a balloon with one hand. If you squeeze it in one area, it will only simultaneously expand in another… This is perhaps the best analogy I can use for axing HRS.
Thankfully, Cambridgeshire is continuing to support HRS and, after positive conversations with the council, it looks like our cost benefit analysis tool is going to be adopted to demonstrate the importance of HRS funding.
Invest to save
Sadly, it is too late for Suffolk and there have been dramatic cuts in Peterborough too, and my thoughts go out to all of the people who will no doubt be in an even more dire situation in a few years’ time. It is estimated that 30% to 40% of the UK’s prison population are care leavers. Imagine the impact on that statistic when there is no more HRS and no more proactive policies in place to support these vulnerable individuals.
We believe that in order to get the best outcomes, we all need to work together and adopt an invest to save mindset. If we don’t, and view HRS as dispensable, the long term cost will be far greater, and more importantly, people will suffer.
For anyone reading this who is sceptical of the benefits that HRS brings, I invite you to come and visit any of our Cambridgeshire services, in Cambridge, Ely and Wisbech, to see for yourself the impact it has on individuals and the community as a whole.
And as you walk around, ask yourself: What would happen to these people if they didn’t have this support? Surely it is not right to leave them behind.
Main image: Andrew Church is director of communities at CHS Group
Read next: Scotland’s Trust buys later living homes from English landlord
Are you a social housing professional? Sign up for a FREE MEMBERSHIP to upload news stories, post job vacancies, and connect with colleagues on our secure social feed.
