Invest In Prevention: a series of articles about housing & support services for people with additional needs

1. Michael Patterson
2014
Invest In Prevention: Articles on funding housing & support services
This collection of articles has been written as an ebook to illustrate the social & cost-benefit of funding preventative housing & support services for people with additional needs.
Support Solutions/Invest In Prevention
Media House, 3 Drayton Road, Birmingham, B14 7LP
0845 271 3080
info@supportsolutions.co.uk

2. Contents
Exempt Accommodation & The Welfare Reform Act: An Update ................................................. 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3
What is "Exempt Accommodation"? ..................................................................................... 3
The Need For Change ................................................................................................................ 4
Current DWP Thinking. .............................................................................................................. 7
Tenancy Sustainment ................................................................................................................. 9
Vulnerability ................................................................................................................................... 9
Social and Financial Return on Investment .................................................................... 10
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 11
Funding Alarms & Proactive Communication Systems for Vulnerable People ........................ 12
In sheltered/supported housing & in dispersed tenancies ........................................ 12
Funding ........................................................................................................................................ 12
One Size Doesn't Fit All............................................................................................................. 13
Fundable Solution ...................................................................................................................... 14
The Way Forward ....................................................................................................................... 15
Welfare Reform, Universal Credit & Exempt Accommodation .................................................... 16
Michael Patterson and Danny Key with a fresh perspective on the significance of Exempt Accommodation and Universal Credit. ..................................................................... 16
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 16
What is the relationship between Welfare Reform and Universal Credit? .......... 16
What is the status of "Intensive Housing Management" and can it be funded under Welfare Reform/Universal Credit? ......................................................................... 17
What will be the impact of Universal Credit on Exempt Accommodation? ......... 17
So what is Exempt Accommodation? ................................................................................. 18
The Benefits of Exempt Accommodation in Relation to Universal Credit ........... 18
The Benefit Cap .......................................................................................................................... 18
The Bedroom Tax ....................................................................................................................... 18
Direct Payment ........................................................................................................................... 19
Directly Managed Supported Housing ............................................................................... 19
Agency Managed Supported Housing ............................................................................... 19
Sheltered Housing ..................................................................................................................... 20
Tenancy Sustainment Services ............................................................................................ 21
General Summary ...................................................................................................................... 22

3. The future funding of supported housing and Intensive Housing Management given the imminent implementation of Universal Credit. ............................................................................... 23
Supported Housing, Universal Credit & Service Charges ........................................................... 26
Supported Housing & Universal Credit ........................................................................ 26
Service Charges for Supported Housing ..................................................................... 27
The SSAC Consultation on Universal Credit .................................................................. 28
Intensive Housing Management & the DWP Review of Housing Benefit for Sheltered & Supported Housing ............................................................................................................................ 30
Michael Patterson tells us about Intensive Housing Management, why Non-Profit landlords should think about it & the implications of the DWP Consultation on Housing Benefit for Supported & Sheltered Housing ........................................................................... 30
Financial ........................................................................................................................................ 31
The Separation of Intensive Housing Management from Support ......................... 31
Insulation from Risk .................................................................................................................. 32
Fulfilment of Contractual Obligations ................................................................................ 32
The DWP Review of Housing Benefit for Supported & Sheltered Housing ........ 33
Consultation Proposals ........................................................................................................... 33
Service Charge Review ........................................................................................................... 34
Comments on the Consultation Proposals....................................................................... 35
Funding for Housing Support & Social Care Services in a Time of Change ........................... 36
Paradigm Shift: The Social Market ..................................................................................... 37
The Cost Benefit of Prevention & Social Return on Investment ............................. 38
Focus on Value not on Cost! ................................................................................................. 39
Diversifying Funding ................................................................................................................. 39
Social Investment ...................................................................................................................... 40
Social Enterprise ........................................................................................................................ 40
Housing Benefit .......................................................................................................................... 42

4. Exempt Accommodation & The Welfare Reform Act: An Update
Introduction
• Defines what "Exempt Accommodation" is and seeks to clarify the present confusion over what is and what is not Exempt Accommodation
• Identifies the need for change to the Exempt Accommodation rules and proposes a new framework for investing in preventative services to support independence in relation to accommodation where vulnerability is an issue
• Provides up to the minute information on the DWP's current thinking on both the future of Exempt Accommodation and its relationship to the Welfare Reform Act
• Discusses how Tenancy Sustainment services to vulnerable people in general needs accommodation can be funded and delivered
• Acknowledges the need for a clear definition of "vulnerability" and the need for a common methodology to demonstrate the social and financial return on investment (SFROI) of services for vulnerable people
What is "Exempt Accommodation"?
In September 2012 the UK Government announced that tenants of Exempt Accommodation would have the housing component of their Universal Credit administered outside of Universal Credit in a manner consistent with the existing Exempt Accommodation rules.
In other words, vulnerable tenants would be entitled to enhanced levels of Housing Benefit as a consequence of their additional housing needs provided that they live in Exempt Accommodation. Subsequently, the DWP also stated that such people would be exempt from bedroom tax, benefit cap and direct payment of rent. These developments were very much in line with what Support Solutions had been predicting would happen since 2011.
"Exempt Accommodation" is
• Where the Landlord is a Non-Metropolitan County Council, charity, voluntary organisation or housing association
• And has a legal interest (ownership or lease) of accommodation

5. • And that accommodation houses people who require "care, support & supervision"
• And that the additional services provided to those people are provided by the landlord, or by an agency on the landlord's behalf
Since that time there has been a deal of confusion on the part of Local Authorities and providers about what Exempt Accommodation is and the situation was not helped by the provision of inconsistent advice from within the sector. This lack of clarity has resulted in a greater appetite on the part of some Housing Benefit Teams to challenge some claims for enhanced Housing Benefit made on the basis of the Exempt Accommodation rules. As a consequence, many supported/sheltered housing schemes managed by Agencies on behalf of Registered Providers have been deemed non-exempt. The same has applied to many sheltered housing schemes, irrespective of the management arrangements, on the grounds that they don't provide sufficient "care support provision" to qualify as Exempt Accommodation.
Both arguments should be easily disprovable. Agency managed schemes are often deemed non-exempt on the grounds that the Agency is commissioned to provide support to the tenants by a third party, e.g. a Supporting People team, so therefore the Agent provides the service on behalf of the third party and not the landlord, so therefore it's not Exempt Accommodation. However, irrespective of any arrangement the Agency has to provide support, the landlord is claiming (and paying to the Agency) enhanced housing management charges for the Agency to provide Additional Housing Management Services/Intensive Housing Management, not support, on the landlord's behalf. This Additional Housing Management Services/Intensive Housing Management constitutes "care support and supervision" because it involves the provision of "more than routine property management functions". This was established by Judge Turnbull in the most recent case law precedent regarding the definition of "Exempt Accommodation". It places a greater burden upon the landlord, or its agent, due to the nature of the accommodation and the tenant group within that accommodation. Furthermore, this Additional Housing Management Services/Intensive Housing Management must make a genuine difference to the ability of the tenant to remain independent in their accommodation.
The same applies to Sheltered Housing. Providing a housing management communication system such as Housing Proactive, which is Housing Benefit eligible, or even an alarm (which isn't) equates to "more than normal property management functions" and makes a genuine difference to the ability to the tenant to live independently in the accommodation. There is no reason why this shouldn't apply to general needs social lettings where the tenant is vulnerable. There is no minimum amount of care support and supervision required to qualify as Exempt Accommodation, although there must be a need for care, support or supervision to be provided.
The outcomes of this system, when it is allowed to work unhindered by technical misinterpretations, is that Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services for vulnerable people in social lettings are funded very cost effectively; at least in part by Housing Benefit and the Exempt Accommodation rules. The major positive outcomes are that vulnerable social tenants receive the sort of Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services that enable them to become or remain independent in their accommodation at a much lower cost than would be payable for the emergency interventions that would otherwise be necessary for some without it. Prevention is not only better than emergency intervention; it's also a lot cheaper. That fact should be obvious to all.
The Need For Change
We do feel, however, that the Exempt Accommodation rules do need reviewing because much has changed since their introduction in 1996. Primarily as a consequence of the work that Support Solutions has undertaken the Exempt Accommodation rules, which were introduced to cap the levels of rent payable to private landlords, are now at least as important a means of funding independence in relation to accommodation as Supporting People, the future for which is

6. uncertain to say the least. We have worked with providers, commissioners and Housing Benefit teams to implement the regulations in a way that is transparent and fair. A way that acknowledges the financial and strategic interests of the Local Authorities and the operation of the subsidy rules through which the Local Authority reclaims the enhanced Housing Benefit it has paid out for Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services under the Exempt Accommodation rules. We do understand their shortcomings in reflecting current arrangements, for example, they include Non-Metropolitan County Councils as Exempt Accommodation landlords but not Unitary Authorities, which have often taken on the roles and functions of County Councils. So this would require either a tribunal case to rule on whether a Unitary is effectively a County Council and therefore complies with the definition. Or it would require us to suggest that the Local Authority leases its properties to a Registered Provider in order to comply with the Exempt Accommodation qualification criteria as a Local Authority landlord.
The whole misunderstood debate around whether or not agency managed schemes are Exempt Accommodation is another example, of the need for change, albeit a by-product of a failure to understand the regulations rather than a failure of the regulations themselves, although we acknowledge that the definitions could be simplified.
What we must do then is to reinvent Exempt Accommodation, the system through which preventative Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services is provided.
One of the major benefits of being an Exempt Accommodation tenant at the moment is the fact that such tenants are protected from some of the implications of the Welfare Reform Act, for example, the Spare Room Subsidy (Bedroom Tax) although that may change (see below), the Benefit Cap and exemption from direct payment arrangements in most cases.
Any replacement for, or reinvention of, the Exempt Accommodation rules should retain these protections to vulnerable people, bearing in mind that for many "vulnerability" will not be a permanent situation.
Any replacement of Exempt Accommodation must enhance its strengths and remove its weaknesses. Perhaps we should call this new system Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services (Investment in Prevention for short) and base it on the principles of prevention and a proven Social/Financial Return on Investment. It should be based on a methodology developed with providers, statutory sector stakeholders and Government.
Firstly, we need clarity as to who would be entitled to receive Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services payments. There should be consistent treatment of all Investment in Prevention providers; irrespective of the legal identity as long as they can provide an acceptable Financial and Social Return on Investment and that they meet proper quality standards that are based on a simplified Quality Assessment Framework standard or similar quality assurance tool. Of course some providers will already have accreditations to provide more complex services than Additional Housing Management Services and these can be passported for compliance purposes.
One of the weaknesses of the Exempt Accommodation rules is that they apply differently to different providers and different tenants. Registered Providers (Housing Associations) are favoured because Local Authorities reclaim from the DWP, via their subsidy claim, all of the enhanced Housing Benefit they pay. Most Local Authorities do not have a problem paying Registered Providers enhanced Housing Benefit under the Exempt Accommodation rules. The same cannot be said in relation to non-Registered Provider Exempt Accommodation providers, such as charities and voluntary agencies. Even though they are absolutely entitled to enhanced Housing Benefit for Additional Housing Management Services Local Authorities are often loath to

7. pay them and for understandable reasons. The Local Authority can only claim 60% of the difference between the Valuation Service Rent determination and the actual level of enhanced Housing Benefit awarded.
This prompted Medway Council to complain to Lord Freud (Minister for Welfare Reform) about the Exempt Accommodation system as non-Registered Provider Exempt Accommodation claims left them with a £1.6 million hole in their accounts. This is a by-product of an inconsistent system. If Medway had been able to claim for subsidy we doubt they would have complained. Medway had good cause to identify this inconsistency in the Exempt Accommodation rules. So there is an uneven playing field between Registered Provider and non-Registered Provider Exempt Accommodation providers, despite the fact that they provide the same sorts of services to the same sorts of people. This inconsistency should not form part of any new system.
Private sector providers are even more restricted in what they can claim where they are also the landlord. This is quite right in relation to their landlord role but the point is that the status of a vulnerable person's landlord, if they have one, should be irrelevant. Why should a private tenant (or owner occupier) be entitled to a reduced level of services and resources based on the legal status of their landlord or the fact that they don't have a landlord? In fact, why should it have anything to do with the landlord at all? What should matter is that whoever provides Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services should be accredited for quality and be able to show a proven social and financial return, according to an agreed methodology, on the work they do with vulnerable people.
So in addition to levelling the playing field between Registered Provider and non-Registered Provider non-profits we also need to do so in respect of treating all vulnerable people consistently. This should be both in relation to enhanced levels of Housing Benefit (whilst Investment in Prevention is paid via that route) and in relation to Welfare Reform Act exemptions.
Under the Exempt Accommodation rules tenants of Registered Providers and non-Registered non-profit Providers are theoretically entitled to enhanced Housing Benefit on the same basis, albeit that non Registered Providers are often subject to greater scrutiny and lower payment for Additional Housing Management Services than their Registered Provider counterparts. This is due to the Local Authorities exposure to subsidy loss. If, however, you are a private tenant or owner-occupier you are entitled to precisely nothing by way of Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services due to the legal status of your landlord, the rent restrictions that apply to private landlords or the fact that you have no landlord. This remains the case irrespective of who the Additional Housing Management Services provider is. It is patently absurd that vulnerable people in the private sector should be discriminated against in this way. Acknowledging this gives us huge scope to develop preventative services irrespective of the form of tenure/status of the landlord. The intention of so doing is to provide a much wider range of cost-benefit proven preventative services that enable people to remain independent in their own accommodation and take a lot of pressure off statutory services.
Routing Investment in Prevention through the DWP's cash-limited budget won't work in the medium to long term. You can't increase a social or financial return by reducing your investment. Money for Investment in Prevention should be disbursed by National Governments to accredited Providers that can show a positive social and financial return on investment.
In case that sounds a bit like "pie in the sky", given the cost before value approach applied to public expenditure, we might want to look at one of the possible implications of enhanced devolution within the UK (or of Scottish independence if that's what happens). It is quite likely that "welfare" will be a devolved function in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, even without Scottish independence. There is a greater appetite within devolved Governments, than in the UK

8. Government, to invest in prevention and to focus on value not cost. It will take just one devolved (or independent) administration to put its money where its mouth is and make this structural change which the UK Government seems to find so difficult: invest in prevention in order to save much more money through reduced emergency interventions and simultaneously impact positively on the lives of vulnerable people and the communities in which they live. Devolved Governments are closer to the people who elect them and seem to be able to respond more quickly to their needs. Pity then, that there is no English Government.
Current DWP Thinking.
You may have heard that the DWP has recently made some announcements that will potentially increase the scope of exemptions from certain Welfare Reform Act provisions to include supported housing that "doesn't meet the precise definition of Exempt Accommodation", including agency-managed schemes (although we believe that the very many of them actually do meet this definition, or could very easily do so). These announcements have been described by some as changes to the Exempt Accommodation rules, which they are not. The Exempt Accommodation rules remain unchanged.
The intention will be to create an additional definition of "Supported Housing" within the Welfare Reform Act Regulations to include both Exempt Accommodation and supported housing that doesn't meet the precise definition of Exempt Accommodation. However, as we have set out above, technical misunderstandings of the detail of what constitutes Exempt Accommodation have already, and wrongly, excluded some agency managed schemes and sheltered accommodation. It seems that the DWP/UK Government and some sector advisors have accepted incorrect and limiting definitions of Exempt Accommodation (e.g. excluding agency managed schemes and sheltered housing from that definition). We remain concerned to ensure that legitimate Exempt Accommodation providers receive the levels of enhanced Housing Benefit to which they are entitled under the Exempt Accommodation rules, which also results in Local Authorities reclaiming via their annual subsidy claim the enhanced Housing Benefit they pay out.
What the Government has said is that it will exempt more people from the Benefit Cap and direct payment of rent if they live in supported/sheltered housing which is agency managed and therefore (sometimes wrongly) deemed not to be Exempt Accommodation and will therefore otherwise be subject to Universal Credit and restricted service charges. Despite previous statements from some sector advisers to the contrary, such schemes will not be exempted from the Spare Room Subsidy (Bedroom Tax). However, the protection from some of the provisions of the Welfare Reform Act does not mean that tenants will necessarily be entitled to enhanced levels of Housing Benefit because, allegedly, they're not in Exempt Accommodation. It is important that these tenants have the same entitlement to enhanced levels of Housing Benefit for Investment in prevention through Additional Housing Management Services where such services are not otherwise funded. We strongly encourage providers and commissioners who find themselves in this position to contact us. Support Solutions specialises in establishing legitimate Exempt Accommodation scenarios; we don't charge if we don't succeed in doing so and in increasing housing revenue.
We think that it is increasingly important for providers to establish Exempt Accommodation status as we believe that one of the possible outcomes of current DWP thinking, albeit not yet, is a finite budget to fund Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services in Exempt Accommodation and possibly also a finite list of eligible service charge activities. However, we also need to bear in mind that there is a strategic move by statutory authorities to move away from expensive and often more institutional forms of provision, such as registered care homes. The alternative would be community-based housing options, much of which would be Exempt Accommodation under the current arrangements and therefore entitled to enhanced levels of Housing Benefit. This being so, the amounts of revenue for Exempt Accommodation are not likely to be capped yet.

9. Our view is that money for prevention should not be held by the DWP, should not be cash-limited and should be disbursed on the basis of a proven positive social and financial return. In addition to agency managed schemes and other supported housing that "doesn't meet the precise definition of Exempt Accommodation, the Government has also decided that where vulnerable social tenants are in receipt of "public subsidy", for example, personal budgets for the provision of care and/or support they will also fall in to the expanded definition.
The DWP has recently been in discussion with a number of the sector's advisory bodies regarding an expansion of the scope of exemptions from the Welfare Reform Act to include those services that don't meet "the precise definition" of Exempt Accommodation. The exemptions in question would be from the Benefit Cap & direct payment of rent to the tenant, but crucially not the Spare Room Subsidy (Bedroom Tax), which up to this point has only applied to tenants of Exempt Accommodation. In concert with the advisory bodies the DWP proposes to replace reference to Exempt Accommodation within the Welfare Reform Act regulations with a new definition: "Supported Housing". Please click here to download a copy of the email from the DWP to the advisory bodies it is in discussion with. Within this email "Supported Housing" is defined as accommodation that is specifically designed or designated for providing support and within which the support provided is funded through a public body. This has been described by sector advisors as a great success for their behind the scenes work with the DWP. We assume this refers to the widening of the scope of exemptions to the Welfare Reform Act regulations, although they have since stepped back from a previous assertion that such exemptions would, critically, include exemption from the Spare Room Subsidy (Bedroom Tax).
However, it is of concern to us that we appear to have arrived at this position without the knowledge of the sector as a whole, the more so because the definition of "Supported Housing" is ambiguous. Support Solutions hopes that "designed or designated" means both purpose-built supported and sheltered housing, other multiply-occupied buildings that house vulnerable people and general needs social lettings within which a vulnerable tenant has been identified. Given Lord Freud's statement that there should be no increase in DWP expenditure we rather fear that it may mean "designed" more than "designated", although we'd be pleased if it means both as this keeps open the door to the possibility of funding tenancy sustainment services, albeit only in social lettings.
Furthermore, what is meant by the statement that "the support provided to the resident should be funded through a public body"? Does this mean a commissioned service, for example, statutory sector funding for "support"? Or does it mean, for example, that local authorities can commission services for a nominal value and that Registered Providers, which are public bodies after all as per Weaver vs. L&Q, can continue to subsidise services, as they have done for years, and thus fulfil the "funded by a public body" criterion whilst retaining an entitlement to enhanced levels of Housing Benefit through the Exempt Accommodation rules?
And that leads us to another question: if references to "Exempt Accommodation" in the Welfare Reform Act Regulations are to be replaced by the definition "Supported Housing", what does that mean for the future of Exempt Accommodation? It seems to us that this proposed definition will include both Exempt Accommodation and schemes that don't meet the precise definition of Exempt Accommodation. It appears that what will occur is that this new definition will be established within the Welfare Reform Act Regulations and will replace Exempt Accommodation as a phrase within those Regulations. Exempt accommodation will continue to exist, however; as a consequence those claimants who qualify for Exempt Accommodation for Housing Benefit purposes may then not qualify for exemption from the Spare Room Subsidy (Bedroom Tax) because of the limited scope of "Supported Housing" within the Welfare Reform Act Regulations. An example of these types of claimants would be those who live in supported accommodation that does not receive any public funding to pay for the care, support or supervision. Far from being a successful negotiating outcome this would be a serious step backwards from the position announced in September 2012 by Iain Duncan-Smith & Lord Freud to the effect that Exempt

10. Accommodation tenants would be exempt from Spare Room Subsidy (Bedroom Tax), Benefit Cap & Direct Payments.
The DWP gives the appearance of having given ground whilst actually doing the opposite. It has agreed to limited additional Welfare Reform Act exemptions to supported housing that "doesn't meet the precise definition of Exempt Accommodation" (although most of it probably does) whilst also removing exemption from the Bedroom Tax from Exempt Accommodation by including the latter in the proposed definition of "Supported Housing". We very much hope that the DWP doesn't now use what appear to be concessions on its part, which aren't really concessions at all, to insist on a more restrictive interpretation of "Supported Housing": i.e. as a commissioned service delivered in purpose-built accommodation.
Tenancy Sustainment
We believe that there is nothing in the Exempt Accommodation rules as they stand to prevent the legitimate claiming of enhanced Housing Benefit for Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services to vulnerable tenants in general needs social lettings. We think it would be an excellent use of public money as a preventative investment where tenancy sustainment, which is needed in the short term, for example as an alternative to eviction where vulnerability is an issue. It would be equally valuable to be able to provide longer term tenancy sustainment services to vulnerable tenants in general needs social lettings under the Exempt Accommodation rules. For example, where a tenant is frail/elderly, or has learning disabilities or long term mental health needs the provision of Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services could make the difference between inexpensive independence in general needs on the one hand and expensive (and probably unnecessary) dependency in support or sheltered housing on the other.
Support Solutions is very interested to talk to providers who would like to develop tenancy sustainment services for vulnerable tenants in general needs funded through enhanced Housing Benefit. For the longer term however we need to look at the tenancy sustainment issue from the perspective of a reinvention of Exempt Accommodation in favour of a wider system of preventative investment. We believe that Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services for vulnerable people in general needs and in private accommodation should be a function of any replacement system for Exempt Accommodation. This should be the case irrespective of the status of the person's landlord or ownership status, unlike the current Exempt Accommodation arrangements. In many cases the landlord won't be the Investment in Prevention provider but whoever is the provider will need to pass muster on the quality and Financial and Social Return on Investment conditions, which would need to be an outcomes- based methodology.
For the future we'd like to see a situation where investment in prevention isn't a function of the UK Government's DWP or any other Government department operating to a cash-limited pot. Investment in prevention should be based on a provable social and financial return: it should reduce public expenditure, not increase it. A failure to invest in prevention is a guarantee of the need to spend excessively on emergency interventions, which is bad for everyone.
Vulnerability
Support Solutions has been calling for an enhanced definition of vulnerability since we responded to the DWP's July 2011 consultation on the future of Housing Benefit in supported and sheltered housing.
For the purposes of Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services, vulnerability should be seen in terms of the implications of that vulnerability for the ability of the person to live independently in their own accommodation. The purpose of Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services is to maximise independence in

11. relation to accommodation for reasons of both independence and cost. It may well be the case that such people have additional support and social care needs which would need to be separately funded. The purpose of Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services and the money that funds it is to ensure that vulnerable people are provided with services that enable them to live as independently in ordinary accommodation as possible within the parameters of choice, need and safety.
Social and Financial Return on Investment
Another issue that requires development is a methodology to calculate the Financial and Social Return on Investment of Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services. Such approaches are complex because people are complex and statutory sector infrastructure such as the NHS, Local Authority social care, homelessness, criminal justice and others will have different needs that require different outcomes from Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services, for example, the NHS might want to see reduced levels of hospital admissions (voluntary and compulsory), reduced pressure on GP surgeries, reduced length of stay in hospital, reduced pressure on community health services etc. Homelessness departments would want to see fewer statutory homelessness interventions; landlords want fewer voids and associated costs, lower arrears, less anti-social behaviour and so on.
We need to focus on discussing a meaningful basis for calculating/quantifying both the financial and social benefit of Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services based on the notion of the maximisation of independence and the minimisation of financial cost by way of interventions that would not have had to happen if cost effective interventions such as Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services had been in place. Actually, this is exactly what the Exempt Accommodation rules do, albeit that their scope is limited by the way they are currently constructed. Support Solutions believes that the time is right to understand these rules better and to change them so they are fit for the future. These rules have worked very well, despite their limitations, the level of misunderstanding about their application and the fact that Support Solutions has made it a primary concern to ensure they fund Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services properly. This is an example of a focus on value not cost. It remains more important than ever that providers who have not yet gone down this route do so.
If we are to reinvent Exempt Accommodation we need to focus on the needs of the tenant, not the nature of the landlord. We need to focus on the integrity, commitment and cost of the Additional Housing Management Services providers through compliance with a simplified Quality Assessment Framework based or other quality standard and we need to focus on a methodology for Financial and Social Return on Investment that is non-bureaucratic, capable of flexibility and is convincing to the DWP, the UK Government as a whole and devolved Governments within the UK.
At a strategic level the DWP has said that any new system to develop or replace Exempt Accommodation should not involve any increase in departmental expenditure. This is an example of a failure to focus on value not cost and a failure to acknowledge that one Government department's expenditure cut is another department's cost increase. In this case, if the DWP reduces what is currently Exempt Accommodation expenditure for preventative services there will be an immediate and far more significant increase in expenditure elsewhere in the NHS, criminal justice, social care and homelessness budgets. Whether money comes from the DWP or any other Government department; it's all public money. It is really very short sighted for Government to focus on departmental expenditure targets without considering the overall impact of all public expenditure.

12. We should focus on value not cost. If a reduction in expenditure on prevention causes a far greater increase in expenditure on crisis intervention, which it evidentially does (CAP Gemini and Frontier Economics), then the capping of expenditure on prevention is a logical absurdity and we remain in the ludicrous position of focusing on cost, not value, and we end up spending far more money than we should on interventions that would otherwise be unnecessary and human pain and suffering which is absolutely avoidable.
The UK Government's view that "welfare" expenditure should be reduced should be tempered by the need to target such expenditure so that it leads to social benefit by way of independence for vulnerable people, and financial benefit by way of reduced pressure on statutory services and a significant reduction in public expenditure. Funding for prevention should be given to accredited providers, not landlords, albeit that many such providers may also be landlords; Registered Providers being the obvious example. These providers should be able to deliver Investment in Prevention through Additional Housing Management Services to any vulnerable person, irrespective of their occupancy status, though means-testing would be necessary.
Conclusions
• Support Solutions is of the view that many services that have been deemed not to meet the precise definition of Exempt Accommodation are Exempt Accommodation, specifically many agency-managed schemes and many schemes that are claimed not to provide sufficient "care, support & supervision".
• We believe that Tenancy Sustainment services can and should be provided to vulnerable people in general needs social lettings through the Exempt Accommodation rules.
• We think that the Exempt Accommodation rules should ultimately be replaced by a wider system of "Investment in Prevention" wherein entitlement to such services should not be dependent on the legal identity of the landlord and should also be open to owner- occupiers on a means-tested basis.
• "Investment in Prevention" should not be funded through the cash-limited budget of the DWP and money should be paid to accredited providers on the basis of a common Social & Financial Return on Investment methodology and with a focus on value before cost.
• Constitutional change within the UK may enable devolved Governments (or an independent Scotland) to facilitate this.
• The current/recent negotiations between the DWP and sector advisers appear to us to be problematic in that the sector has not been sufficiently involved in them. They have resulted in what appear to be pyrrhic concessions at the possible expense of Exempt Accommodation tenants now being subject to the Spare Room Subsidy (Bedroom Tax), from which they were previously exempted. This would be a particular issue for Tenancy Sustainment services for vulnerable tenants in general needs accommodation. We would be happy for our fears on this to be allayed.
• We need an agreed definition of "vulnerability" and a common Social & Financial Return on Investment methodology.

13. Funding Alarms & Proactive Communication Systems for Vulnerable People
In sheltered/supported housing & in dispersed tenancies
Summary
Providers and Commissioners involved in the provision of emergency alarm services to vulnerable people have a problem; they are increasingly experiencing funding restrictions, which inevitably means that the provider will need to subsidise or entirely fund the service unless they ask the residents themselves to pay
This mostly affects services for older people, but by no means always. If we think laterally and innovatively we might just be able to reframe our thinking on the provision of what might be better seen as proactive communications systems not just alarms which reactively respond to emergencies, some of which may have been avoidable had there been a higher level of routine proactive communication. Sometimes emergency alarms are used for non-emergency communication as well, despite the fact that they're routinely unfunded.
We could widen the scope of what these communications systems do and go beyond older people in sheltered and extracare schemes. How about older people in dispersed accommodation like general needs? How about other vulnerable people, whether in supported housing or general needs accommodation?
It is important, however, that in reimagining this issue we keep some key objectives in mind and stick to them:
• The service provided to older and other vulnerable people should be improved, not diminished
• Costs to the landlord and to the tenants should not increase: instead they should reduce or be eliminated
• Staff resources should be freed up so they can be targeted more effectively to people with the greatest need
• The service should be preventative in nature with the intention of keeping the accommodation adequate to the residents' needs. It should be safe and take pressure off statutory services
• The service should apply to accommodation-based services and to vulnerable people living in what are otherwise general needs tenancies.
It is especially important in these harsh times for the public purse that we are able to work innovatively to find new ways of making things better and more cost-effective. Support Solutions has thought much about how we should collectively respond to the needs of vulnerable people in an increasingly fraught public funding climate and the challenges of welfare reform: what follows is one response and there will be others. Watch this space!
Funding
There is a problem: no one feels able to fund alarms any more, be that the whole "alarm" system or just parts of it. Traditionally one or a combination of the following funding streams has funded alarm services:
• Housing Benefit

14. • Supporting People
• Social Care/NHS funding
The fact that there are a number of historical funding streams shows that there are a number of different components to what we call an "alarm" service. For example, there is the hardware/equipment (hard-wired systems with pull cords, dispersed pendant alarms). These components are increasingly hard to fund other than by recovering the costs directly from the people who use them, and some don't use them, they just happen to be provided as part as the accommodation.
Some providers subsidise the service as the hardware components and the servicing, maintenance and upgrading of those components are increasingly difficult to fund as a service charge.
Housing Benefit departments are seeing the servicing and maintenance of alarms as ineligible as it is part of the "provision of an alarm" which is ineligible under Schedule 1 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006. The service charge guidance connected to the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 also establishes that all elements of a personal emergency alarm are ineligible for funding.
Then there's the human response (the call centre, scheme-based and/or floating support staff). This has historically been funded through Supporting People and sometimes it still is, but that's now the exception not the rule. Supporting People sometimes used to meet the hardware costs of some alarm systems as well. Providers have, often with Support Solutions' assistance, successfully allocated some of the costs into the Housing Benefit service charge to reflect the response to calls related to the door entry intercom system, the fire alarm or other property- related functions. This is still remotely possible albeit very short term as the majority of Housing Benefit departments are determining that the entirety of the emergency alarm response is ineligible for Housing Benefit.
Another potential funding route is the NHS/Adult Social Care department (or Social Work department if you're in Scotland). This can be argued on the basis that the funding of preventative services reduces demand and associated costs on statutory sector health and social care services. However, alarm systems are primarily reactive not preventative. Statutory sector commissioners are going to want to understand your "value proposition" - or how much you are going to save them, not cost them. Reactive alarms, which can sometimes be expensive, don't provide the outcomes for that.
If we change our thinking and forget about the "alarm" label for a moment and focus on the idea of a proactive communication system then we might be able to reimagine how we provide services to older and other vulnerable people in accommodation-based and dispersed tenancies and how we get them funded.
One Size Doesn't Fit All
A constant concern on the part of anyone involved in sheltered housing, as an example, is the sometimes "one size fits all" approach to the provision of "alarms" and associated communication systems, especially with "hardwired" systems. Some people benefit from this provision, albeit to varying degrees, and some don't but it's often there anyway. Sometimes people don't need it, don't want it but they, or their landlord, have to cover the costs of it anyway. What is needed are services and associated equipment that are targeted to needs and costed and funded accordingly.
What is also needed is choice. We're in the age of personalised services now so it's important that people can be in control of how such services are deployed to meet their needs.

15. Any reimagination of the old "alarm" systems shouldn't always mean that they disappear, just that they are not the default position. Most of the components of a traditional "alarm" system are important, but as part of a wider and more functionally preventative system rather than being the centrepiece of a reactive "alarm" system. Given the problems with funding it would seem like a good idea to create service delivery models that reduce the cost of the provision of the alarm
Fundable Solution
Housing Proactive can sit at the heart of any proactive communication system for vulnerable people; it reduces and sometimes eliminates the need for alarms in the traditional sense (and at the very least can reduce the unfundable elements of an alarm to a few pence a week). In addition to improving services to vulnerable people it costs tenants and providers nothing at all to install, run and maintain provided tenants are HB eligible and very little if they're not.
Furthermore, Housing Proactive is an additional housing management service, the provision of which is sufficient in its own right to create an Exempt Accommodation scenario for Housing Benefit purposes in both accommodation-based and dispersed tenancies. This is hugely beneficial to tenants and providers in the context of welfare reform: it protects both against welfare reform restrictions and allows prevention to be properly resourced and funded.
So what does it do and how?
• It's a telephone-based housing management system based around proactive communication with tenants: it works over landlines or supplied mobile units.
• Tenants tell you that everything is ok with and at their property each day by simply pressing a button before a time you've agreed with them. They can then get on with their day without having to wait for a call or a visit, thus the system promotes independence not dependence.
• If they don't press the button, they get a call, if they don't answer; they get a visit to confirm everything is in order.
• Staff time and resources can be redeployed to tenants who really do need staff input.
• It augments existing alarm systems, reduces the need for them and associated costs.
• It acts as a 2 way messaging and communication system between provider staff and all tenants, a group of tenants or an individual tenants. For example your staff can broadcast an important message to multiple schemes in minutes.
• It provides useful housing management information for example detailed occupancy data.
• It is an additional housing management service that enables providers to legitimately define accommodation as Exempt Accommodation
• You can incorporate door entry and fire system monitoring so you don't need to pay to have this functionality included within a traditional alarm system: within a "traditional" alarm system this functionality is unfundable, within Housing Proactive it's completely fundable through housing benefit
• It eliminates the inappropriate use of alarm systems as a communication system for repairs and housing issues and therefore should reduce alarm-monitoring costs.
• It is operational 365 days a year
Staff will want to be sure that the full range of tenant needs can be covered by any proactive communication system, from additional housing management services like Housing Proactive (funded through Housing Benefit) through to an emergency alarm.
There must be a more productive and targeted way to deliver services to those who need them the most. Rather than knocking on doors or telephoning every tenant every day to ask "is everything okay?" wouldn't it be better if the default position was that the tenants let you know that everything was okay? If they didn't let you know that by a prearranged time then you'd contact them immediately. How much resource does a traditional daily check take especially in large schemes, half a day and more than 1 member of staff? And what about vulnerable tenants

16. in general needs stock? It's hardly practical to visit, or contact them all but sometimes they may have equal or greater needs than some people in sheltered or supported housing. What if this time could be spent focusing on and making a real difference to those people who need you most?
Of course direct and easy communication with all tenants should be part of any proactive communication system. Tenants can proactively contact scheme/floating support staff, repairs, customer services. Staff should also easily be able to contact all of the tenants group: tell some of them about a facilities issue, a meeting that's happening, all of them about a security concern or just one of them about a meeting or appointment.
A proactive communication system, including Housing Proactive, shouldn't replace face-to-face contact with people, it should augment it in the same way that it augments the use of emergency alarms and combines all those components into a single proactive system.
It should also be able to provide you with meaningful and useful management information but fundamentally it should cost nothing at all (it's fundable through the rent and/or service charges and will remain so irrespective of the implications of the Welfare Reform Act), reduce the costs of unfunded elements, enable better staff deployment and enhance services to tenants.
The Way Forward
So the answer to questions over how we fund alarms is to reframe the question. If an "alarm" system is comprised just of emergency reactive components it's not fundable. If the default service is Housing Proactive, it's fundable. If people need additional components such as a dispersed alarm then they should have that too but the point is that it's based on need - it's not a "one size fits all" approach that is both inappropriate and unfundable as well as being expensive to maintain. Housing Proactive can also include door entry and fire system monitoring, which are unfundable as part as an emergency alarm system but entirely fundable if they're part of a housing management system. Housing Proactive is also based on a telephone line, which the vast majority of your residents already have or supplied a mobile (GSM) unit, reducing the need for hard-wired infrastructure. Why not use that as a means of enabling proactive communication and provide dispersed alarms where need and choice really demands it?
Please contact michael@supportsolutions.co.uk or danny@supportsolutions.co.uk. This is about reimagining the idea of "alarms" to improve services to vulnerable people whether they're older people in sheltered accommodation or extracare, or vulnerable tenants in accommodation-based or dispersed "general needs" tenants. We know it'll be a game changer in the reimagining and funding of what we used to call "alarms"

17. Welfare Reform, Universal Credit & Exempt Accommodation
Michael Patterson and Danny Key with a fresh perspective on the significance of Exempt Accommodation and Universal Credit.
Introduction
At the moment there is much concern and rumour circulating in relation to Welfare Reform, Universal Credit and Exempt Accommodation. This includes but isn't limited to:
• How will Universal Credit affect vulnerable people and the organisations that work with them?
• What is Exempt Accommodation and whom does it benefit?
• What is the status of Intensive Housing Management and can it be funded under Welfare Reform/Universal Credit
• Is Directly Managed Supported Housing Exempt Accommodation?
• Are agency-managed schemes Exempt Accommodation?
• Is Sheltered Housing Exempt Accommodation?
• Can Tenancy Sustainment Services be funded through the additional revenue if they are seen as Exempt Accommodation?
Support Solutions has been at the forefront of thinking on issues associated with Welfare Reform, Universal Credit and Exempt Accommodation both strategically and technically. In a situation of fundamental and complex change we have accurately predicted and assessed how these issues have developed and what impact they will have on supported and sheltered housing providers and the people they accommodate and/or support.
Our primary concerns have been and remain to provide clear and unambiguous advice on the policy and financial issues in an environment of uncertainty and misinformation. You can read our previous briefings on these and other relevant issues at www.supportsolutions.co.uk/services/the_briefing.html.
What is the relationship between Welfare Reform and Universal Credit?
The Welfare Reform Act is the biggest change to the welfare state since its inception and the Government's intention is to save money by streamlining the welfare system and to incentivise work. The centerpiece of the Welfare Reform Act is Universal Credit, a new form of welfare benefit that is intended to replace 6 separate benefits for working age people with a single benefit called Universal Credit. The 6 benefits in question are:
• Income Support

18. • income-based Job Seekers Allowance
• Income-based Employment & Support Allowance
• Housing Benefit
• Council Tax Benefit
• Working Tax Credit
Universal Credit is to be implemented in stages up to 2017.
What is the status of "Intensive Housing Management" and can it be funded under Welfare Reform/Universal Credit?
"Intensive Housing Management" is a term that was in widespread use until the advent of Supporting People in 2003. The funding for Intensive Housing Management tasks was in the form of a budget called SHMG (Supported Housing Management Grant). SHMG was paid to Registered Providers by what was the Housing Corporation for them, or Agencies on their behalf, to fund Intensive Housing Management tasks. These are the sorts of tasks that supported and sheltered housing providers routine need to undertake over and above normal property management functions because of the vulnerabilities of the tenants in question. There is more detail in our updated 2010 Briefing here.
Support Solutions has, over the past few years, reintroduced Intensive Housing Management as a strategic tool to enhance levels of Housing Benefit revenue for Exempt Accommodation schemes as the Supporting People budget has retrenched. This has worked really well. However, the DWP has recently stated that we should collectively avoid the use of the term "Intensive Housing Management". They have not said why and it may be that they may have a concern about formalising a definition of Intensive Housing Management such that it constitutes an agreed list of fundable tasks. Whatever the reason, perhaps it is best if we re-describe these tasks more generally as "additional housing management services", which is what Intensive Housing Management is anyway. For the purpose of this Briefing we will use the 2 terms interchangeably and in future we'll stick to using "additional housing management services" to describe the same tasks and activities as we have previously included within the "Intensive Housing Management" definition.
What will be the impact of Universal Credit on Exempt Accommodation?
As long ago as October 2011 Support Solutions predicted and advised that the DWP might exclude some components of the welfare benefit entitlements of vulnerable people from Universal Credit. This is what has happened. On 17th September 2012 the DWP announced that the housing component of Universal Credit for vulnerable people (or, more specifically, people in Exempt Accommodation - see below) is to be administered separately from Universal Credit in broadly the same way as it is now: i.e. a locally-based Housing Benefit system that acknowledges and funds the additional costs of supported and sheltered housing.
So that's a good thing. Support Solutions has been largely responsible for informing the strategy of incorporating legitimate Intensive Housing Management costs into the rent or service charge payable by Housing Benefit assistance, which has helped providers and Local Authorities in managing reductions in the Supporting People budget without negatively impacting on service delivery, revenue for services and in funding preventative services.
Additionally, where a Registered Provider as distinct from a non-Registered Provider organisation, has a legal interest in the property by way of ownership or lease and justifiably incorporates Intensive Housing Management/additional housing management services costs onto the gross Housing Benefit eligible charge, the Local Authority, which pays the enhanced rates of Housing Benefit that are payable as a consequence, can claim all of it back from the DWP. Where the landlord is a non-profit organisation but not a Registered Provider the Local

19. Authority can reclaim 60% of the difference between the rent service determined market rent level and the actual rent charged.
This system will continue to operate on broadly the same way as it does now. A locally based arrangement for funding the additional costs of housing for vulnerable people provided that the accommodation in question qualifies as Exempt Accommodation.
So what is Exempt Accommodation?
Exempt Accommodation is accommodation provided by a registered provider of social housing, registered charity, non-metropolitan County Council or another form of non-profit making organization where the landlord provides care, support or supervision directly or where the care, support or supervision is provided on the landlord's behalf. The Exempt Accommodation rules allow providers of such accommodation to fund additional housing management services to vulnerable tenants (provided that the costs can be properly justified). You can learn more about how this system works and how we can help you with it by clicking here.
Many people within the Sector thought that Exempt Accommodation would be abolished by the Welfare Reform Act; however, the very opposite has happened. The DWP decided to administer the housing component of welfare benefit entitlements for people in Exempt Accommodation outside of Universal Credit, which means that higher levels of housing revenue continue to be payable to providers of Exempt Accommodation because they provide additional housing management services. This arrangement is set to continue for some time yet and it is very important that eligible providers (any Exempt Landlord) take steps now to ensure that their revenue position is optimised. Talk to us. We can ensure that you achieve this in a financially and operationally painless way.
It is undoubtedly in the interests of commissioners within Local Authorities responsible for purchasing care and support for Exempt Accommodation conditions to exist or be created in a manner entirely consistent with the Exempt Accommodation rules. The Local Authority recovers money it would otherwise either have to pay out from the Supporting People or Social Services budgets or not fund at all. Providers retain the revenue necessary to fund preventative services (which saves the statutory sector, including the Local Authority, a lot more money) and vulnerable people get the services they need.
The Benefits of Exempt Accommodation in Relation to Universal Credit
The existence and creation of genuine Exempt Accommodation scenarios is important not only because of the financial resource benefits to the Local Authorities, the Providers and the Tenants but also because it continues to allow the funding or preventative services where other revenue streams are being retrenched.
However, there are additional benefits to Exempt Accommodation status in relation to Universal Credit.
The Benefit Cap
Under Universal Credit people have their benefit entitlement capped at £350 per week for a single person without dependents and £500 per week for families. Of course these caps wouldn't affect everyone living in supported and sheltered housing; however they will not apply to anyone living in Exempt Accommodation.
The Bedroom Tax
The Bedroom Tax is designed to make under occupation of property financially disadvantageous to Universal Credit claimants by deducting 14% of the housing component of the claimant's

20. Universal Credit for one unoccupied room and 25% for 2 or more unoccupied rooms. This is unlikely in Exempt Accommodation situations; however, Exempt Accommodation tenants are exempt from the Bedroom Tax anyway.
Direct Payment
The DWP has piloted the notion of paying all Universal Credit entitlements including the housing component (it is a single benefit remember) direct to the tenant. The intention is to prepare people for the need to budget on a monthly income as they would if they were in paid employment. However, the DWP is considering making payments to Landlords instead on a "payment exceptions" basis, which means that where people fulfill certain criteria around vulnerability they will not be paid direct and the rent will be paid to the landlord much as it is now. People who live in supported or sheltered housing would qualify for a "payment exception" under the arrangements under discussion. Please see our recent Blog for more details on this.
Exempt Accommodation is a complex technical area and there has been much discussion, rumour and misinformation about it, particularly in recent weeks and months. Support Solutions would therefore like to take the opportunity to clarify the position for you in relation to different types of arrangement through which vulnerable people are accommodated and supported.
Directly Managed Supported Housing
Directly managed supported housing is Exempt Accommodation provided that:
• The landlord is a non-profit organisation
• The landlord has a legal interest in the property (it owns or leases it)
• The people who live in the property are in need of some form of care, support or supervision
• The Landlord provides additional housing management services (it can be provided by an Agency on the Landlord's behalf and also be Exempt Accommodation, but obviously this would not be directly managed supported housing)
Agency Managed Supported Housing
Agency-managed supported housing is where an agency (non-profit or Registered Provider) manages a supported housing service typically in a property owned by a Registered Provider landlord and where the people who live there are tenants of the Registered Provider, not the managing Agency.
In such arrangements most of the factors that would qualify directly managed supported housing as Exempt Accommodation will all typically be in place:
• The landlord is a non-profit organisation
• The landlord has a legal interest in the property (it owns or leases it)
• The people who live in the property are in need of some form of care, support or supervision
By definition, in directly managed schemes the service will be provided by the Landlord thus fulfilling the requirement that the care, support or supervision must be provided "by or on behalf of the Landlord". However, in Agency managed schemes there is a question mark over whether the "by or on behalf of the Landlord" rule is complied with. In these arrangements the Landlord definitely does not provide the care, support or supervision and additional housing management services; the Agency provides it. But does the Agency provide the service on behalf of the Landlord or on behalf of the Local Authority or other Commissioning Authority that commissions the service? A Housing Benefit adjudication officer might be correct in arguing that actually the

21. Agency is providing the service on behalf of whoever commissioned it to provide the service and not on behalf of the Landlord. In which case it's not Exempt Accommodation.
However, all is not lost! We don't have the word "solutions" in our name for nothing. There are a number of ways to deal with this:
1. Ensure that the Management Agreement between the Landlord and the Agency states that the Agency provides "additional housing management services" on behalf of the Landlord. The occupancy agreements within such properties should also refer to the fact that the Agency provides "additional housing management services" and may list them as a schedule to the occupancy agreement. Practical evidence should be established to justify the provision of additional housing management services on behalf of the owning landlord.
2. A Tripartite Agreement between the Commissioning Authority (typically, but not always, a Local Authority in some form or other), the Landlord and the Agency wherein the Commissioning Authority might commission the Landlord to provide the service on the basis that the Landlord subcontracts it to the Agency.
3. The Landlord could provide some additional housing management services in addition to anything provided by the Agency if there is scope and need to do so, and there often is.
4. The Landlord could lease the property to the Agency for a period of time, meaning that the Agency becomes the Landlord and the scheme becomes a directly managed supported housing scheme. It should be noted, however, that if the Agency isn't a Registered Provider the Local Authority would only be able to reclaim from the DWP 60% of the difference between the Local Housing Allowance rate and the actual rent. It helps the Local Authority for a Registered Provider to be involved and for Exempt Accommodation situations to exist in general.
At a wider level it is really important that both the Landlord and the Agency talk to each other and colleagues in the Commissioning Authority and Housing Benefit team, bearing in mind the fact that the priorities of the Housing Benefit Team and their Commissioning Authority colleagues may not always be the same.
Sheltered Housing
There has been much speculation and advice recently to the effect that sheltered housing isn't Exempt Accommodation. We disagree. Sheltered housing is Exempt Accommodation if the people who live in the accommodation are provided with some additional housing management services that would not ordinarily be provided in general needs accommodation due to the nature of the accommodation and the tenant group. An example of this is an emergency alarm, warden call system, lifeline or some other form of proactive or reactive housing management or support facility. A landlord should ask themselves the question, "does this additional service make a real difference to the tenant's ability to live in their accommodation adequately" If the answer is yes then the service can be categorised as support.
Case law precedent establishes that additional housing management services can be sufficient to meet the definition of support, even where that additional housing management is actually being recovered in the rent or the service charges. It is the requirement of these services, and the subsequent delivery that qualifies this type of service as sufficient to meet the definition of support. Clearly an emergency alarm, or something similar would be sufficient to meet the definition of support and therefore meet the qualifying criteria for exempt accommodation.
Of course the same 4 basic criteria for Exempt Accommodation that apply to supported housing as apply to sheltered housing.
It is actually very important that sheltered housing is seen as Exempt Accommodation as many Local Authorities have made the decision not to fund services in sheltered housing through their

22. Supporting People or Social Services budgets and it is important that legitimate additional housing management services can be met through Housing Benefit.
Another problem for sheltered housing providers is the difficulty of funding alarms. Housing Benefit routinely does not fund alarms and Local Authorities are increasingly not doing so. However, it is possible to find assistive technology that is fully Housing Benefit fundable (i.e., it costs the Landlord nothing at all and it costs the tenant nothing at provided they are eligible for Housing Benefit}. The only example of this is the Housing Proactive system. Housing Proactive is a housing management system based around proactive contact that enables providers to efficiently manage properties in which a level of support is required due to the type of accommodation and resident group. Housing Proactive replaces housing management functions that were traditionally provided by a "Scheme Manager" allowing staff to focus on residents with the highest needs, irrespective of staffing levels or structure.
The key features of this system, which provides additional housing management services include
• Proactive property checks
• Maintenance news messaging
• Buildings safety emergency messaging
• Occupancy tracking for fire safety
• Void property management
• Repairs hotline button
• Property standards surveying
• Housing management reports
• Housing staff rapid location
It also has optional support features including support and well-being checks, medication and appointment reminders and discounted dispersed alarm services. These optional features are not Housing Benefit eligible; all of the others listed above are Housing Benefit eligible.
Sheltered housing is not only Exempt Accommodation it is also able to augment staffing and provide a solution to some of the problems around the funding of alarms through the use of Housing Benefit fundable assistive technology systems such as Housing Proactive which provide additional housing management services.
Tenancy Sustainment Services
We at Support Solutions have recently done quite a lot of thinking about how to fund much needed tenancy sustainment services in general needs accommodation. Many of our clients raise this with us and we believe that it is not only possible to provide additional housing management services to vulnerable tenants in general needs accommodation, provided that it fulfils the Exempt Accommodation criteria, it is also necessary as a means of preventing the human and financial cost of arrears, evictions, voids and additional pressure on Local Authorities statutory homelessness functions and budgets.
This can be done on a directly managed and agency managed basis where an Exempt Accommodation situation exists. It would require the tenant to agree to a deed of variation to their tenancy agreement that allows the Landlord, or an Agency on its behalf, to provide additional housing management services in order to assist the vulnerable tenant to sustain their tenancy. This can be either to avoid eviction in a crisis through a short-term intervention, or to assist a tenant on a more routine basis to live in independent accommodation where the alternative might be supported and sheltered housing, extra care or residential care.

23. General Summary
Much of the coverage of Welfare Reform, Universal Credit and Exempt Accommodation has been negative and worrying; however, Support Solutions takes a rather different view as far as Universal Credit applies to Exempt Accommodation.
There was much speculation, which we disagreed with, that Exempt Accommodation wouldn't survive the Welfare Reform Act. In fact the opposite is true: Exempt Accommodation has had its status reinforced as it becomes the passport to having routine and additional housing costs met outside of Universal Credit in much the same way as they are now, which is reflective of the higher costs of supported and sheltered housing.
Exempt Accommodation tenants will be excluded from the benefit cap, the bedroom tax and direct payments.
Support Solutions believes that directly managed supported housing and sheltered housing is typically Exempt Accommodation and that agency managed supported housing and tenancy sustainment services can and should be Exempt Accommodation if the strategies we identify are followed to the mutual benefit of Local and other Commissioning Authorities, Landlords, Agents and Tenants
If you'd like to discuss the issues raised in this Briefing please contactdanny@supportsolutions.co.uk or michael@supportsolutions.co.uk. Please also join our free LinkedIn Discussion Group on Exempt Accommodation here.

24. The Future Funding of Supported Housing and Intensive Housing Management Given the Imminent
Implementation of Universal Credit.
When the draft Universal Credit Regulations were published in June of this year they made no mention of supported and sheltered housing or of "vulnerability". At the time Support Solutions published a Briefing (here) the key thrust of which was our prediction that the DWP would decide to exclude supported housing from Universal Credit, at least for the time being. We used the following words:
"The Draft Regulations on Universal Credit don't mention supported housing or Exempt Accommodation. We believe there is increasing evidence to suggest that the Government is intending to exclude "supported housing" from Universal Credit for the time being at least. We put "supported housing" in inverted commas because we don't know whether this definition includes, for example, sheltered housing. It would be consistent if it does include sheltered housing given that this type of accommodation was included in the original Supporting People contract arrangements and is almost exclusively provided by Registered Providers of social housing. However, if "supported housing" is excluded from Universal Credit, it remains to be seen how it will be defined. This question may be resolved as a consequence of a definition of "vulnerability", which the DWP has said may happen and which Support Solutions has said is necessary."
Since then we have been waiting to hear from the DWP as to the approach they are going to take to supported housing given the looming implementation of Universal Credit from October 2013. Our view has been, since the publication of the draft Universal Credit Regulations; the DWP would make its views on this known as part of its long-awaited response to the Consultation on "HB Reform - Supported and Sheltered Housing" which was published in July 2011 and closed on 9th October 2011. The DWP received 450 responses to that Consultation including ours (here) which, amongst other things, made the case for the funding of supported and sheltered housing to be administered locally and not as part of a centrally administered system such as Universal Credit.
The DWP has now begun to make clear how it sees the future funding of what Lord Freud termed "exempt supported housing" (otherwise known as "Exempt Accommodation") which is defined by the DWP as "a resettlement place; or accommodation provided by a county council, housing association registered charity or voluntary organisation where that body or person acting on their behalf provides the claimant with care, support or supervision." The use of the term "exempt supported housing" begs the question as to whether that definition includes sheltered accommodation: more about that later.
The beginnings of this clarity came on 17th September during a meeting of the Work and Pensions Select Committee attended by Iain Duncan-Smith and Lord Freud in which Iain Duncan-Smith told the Committee that the housing costs of Exempt Accommodation will be administered outside of Universal Credit. You can listen to the 10-minute discussion at the Select Committee here.

25. This is, in our view, excellent news and very much reflects what we predicted would happen when we put pen to paper back in June. However, in practical terms, what does this mean? Well to quote from a letter by Cathy Payne of the DWP's Universal Credit Policy Division to the Social Security Advisory Committee on 21st September:
Supported accommodation housing costs.
Having listened to representations, Ministers have announced that help towards housing costs for those living in supported accommodation will be provided outside Universal Credit. DWP wants to continue to provide a flexible system to help meet the higher costs often associated with providing supported accommodation.
What this means is that local authorities will continue to fund the housing elements of Exempt Accommodation broadly in the same way as they do now. It may well be that other non-housing welfare benefit entitlements will be subsumed into Universal Credit but not funding for housing costs that will continue to be locally administered under existing regulations. There are a number of implications that flow from this:
• The existing Exempt Accommodation rules will continue to operate meaning that providers can continue to charge for Intensive Housing Management through enhanced Housing Benefit payments, provided that such services are not otherwise funded by a 3rd party (for example, Supporting People).
Interestingly, in July the Chartered Institute of Housing held a "Reshaping Supporting People Services" conference during which it was stated that, and I paraphrase: "Intensive Housing Management is unlikely to survive the Welfare Reform Act" (of which Universal Credit is the centerpiece). With hindsight, and perhaps a little foresight, that sentiment can be seen to have been ill founded.
It therefore remains the case that it is prudent, indeed more necessary than ever, for providers of Exempt Accommodation to ensure that the costs of their Intensive Housing Management services are fully recovered through the existing arrangements: i.e. enhanced service charge income though Housing Benefit. This is something that Support Solutions has pioneered and developed since 2005 and has enabled many, many providers to continue to fully fund their services despite reductions in other funding streams such as Supporting People. There's plenty of detail on this approach here, or just call or email us (michael@supportsolutions.co.uk).
• Given the retention of the arrangements by which providers can meet Intensive Housing Management costs through enhanced levels of HB it is hard to see how the weekly benefit caps in the Universal Credit regulations of £350 for a single person and £500 for a family can be applied to people in Exempt Accommodation (they won't apply to DLA/PIP[1] and ESA (Support) claimants anyway). Even with enhanced levels of HB many people in Exempt Accommodation won't breach those caps anyway but a significant number will, especially in services that support women fleeing domestic violence and abuse, ex-offenders and single homeless people with support needs. There is some useful research by the NHF on higher cost services and benefit caps here, which makes the case for a relaxation of benefit caps under Universal Credit. It seems inevitable that there will have to be such a relaxation for higher cost services as a consequence of the exclusion of supported housing costs from Universal Credit.
• We note the lack of specific reference to sheltered housing as distinct from supported housing in the comments from the DWP. Whilst the language in the DWP's letter of 21st September to the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) would allow for the inclusion of sheltered housing it may be that any sheltered housing tenant who chooses to opt out of services provided by the scheme staff will have their housing and other

26. benefit entitlements administered within Universal Credit provided they are under pensionable age (Universal Credit being payable only to people of working age).
It's hard to know whether the DWP decided to exclude Exempt Accommodation from the housing component of Universal Credit because of the complexities of including it or because they accepted the arguments that Support Solutions and others have made around the fact that funding prevention, in this case through Intensive Housing Management charges, actually saves a lot of money to the statutory sector as well as improving the quality of life of vulnerable people. The economic and social return on investment arguments are well established through research such as that undertaken byCap Gemini and Frontier Economics.
Whatever the reason the DWP based its decision on they have decided to retain the existing system broadly as it is for the time being whilst looking to develop and pilot a locally based replacement system in the longer term which will remain outside of Universal Credit. We need to understand more clearly what the DWP means when they say that funding the additional housing costs of Exempt Accommodation (i.e. Intensive Housing Management) will remain broadly the same. We also need to understand the detail of the locally based future system, especially given the funding problems that local authorities are constantly concerned about. The fact that the exclusion of Intensive Housing Management costs from Universal Credit is a huge step in the right direction should not detract from the need to get the longer term arrangements right. The sector really must influence the shape of the new system and we at Support Solutions will play our part as we have successfully done in arguing for the exclusion from Universal Credit of (the housing component) of funding for supported housing and its continued administration at local level.

27. Supported Housing, Universal Credit & Service Charges
The scope of this briefing is to look at the Universal Credit Draft Regulations, progress on the DWP Review of the Future of Housing Benefit for Sheltered & Supported Housing and the Social Security Advisory Committee Consultation on the Universal Credit Regulations. There is a relationship between all 3 of these things and there is a common theme: will "supported housing" be excluded from Universal Credit and will the need to define "vulnerability" also define who lives in supported housing?
Lately we have been very busy with enquiries from clients and others concerning the future of Housing Benefit for supported and sheltered housing. The primary reason for this is the publication in June of the Draft Universal Credit Regulations and on 19th June the publication of a briefing by a sector advisor which said the Draft Regulations for Universal Credit had been published but made no mention of supported housing or Exempt Accommodation. The author assumed that this was because either:
1. Supported housing would be subject to the general Universal Credit rules just like any other form of housing, or
2. The Government might exclude supported housing from Universal Credit
The briefing in question proceeded on the assumption that 1 above would apply.
This briefing also made no reference to the meeting of 19th March between Lord Freud (Minister for Welfare Reform), DWP officials and sector representatives, which relates very strongly to 2 (above). In addition, the DWP consultation proposals on the future of Housing Benefit for supported and sheltered housing are still to finally report. We are aware of a number of organisations that were notified that the briefing had been revised and we are aware of rather more who were not; a consequence probably of the unrestricted circulation policy for the briefing in question.
It is important for Support Solutions to set out our understanding of the situation so that providers of supported housing are fully informed as to the possibilities. There are 3 broad areas of concern:
1. Supported housing and Universal Credit
2. Service charges for supported housing
3. The SSAC Consultation on Universal Credit
Supported Housing & Universal Credit
The Draft Regulations on Universal Credit don't mention supported housing or Exempt Accommodation. We believe there is increasing evidence to suggest that the Government is intending to exclude "supported housing" from Universal Credit for the time being at least. We put "supported housing" in inverted commas because we don't know whether this definition includes, for example, sheltered housing. It would be consistent if it does include sheltered housing given that this type of accommodation was included in the original Supporting People contract arrangements and is almost exclusively provided by Registered Providers of social housing. However, if "supported housing" is excluded from Universal Credit, it remains to be seen how it will be defined. This question may be resolved as a consequence of a definition of

28. "vulnerability", which the DWP has said may happen and which Support Solutions has said is necessary.
We published a briefing on 7th May which deals in more detail with the notion of excluding supported housing from Universal Credit. You can read that briefing here, but to summarise Lord Freud suggested at the 19th March meeting:
• Devolved arrangements for administering Housing Benefit for Exempt Accommodation
• The possible exclusion of supported housing from Universal Credit
• A definition of "vulnerability"
He mentioned other things such as the fact that, in supported housing, the rent will be paid direct to the landlord as default position; that should supported housing be included in Universal Credit (which is by no means certain) it will be on the basis of "robust risk assessments and piloting"; that there will be transitional arrangements should this occur and that there will be a review of service charges in general.
All of these points are covered in our 7th May briefing. Their significance, in summary, is that we now see the possibility of the retention of some local infrastructure to administer benefits to people in "supported housing". It is important to be aware; however, that "supported housing" may be redefined, possibly because of the need for a definition of "vulnerable", which will doubtless influence any definition of "supported housing". It is also important that we await, and influence, developments. The Draft Universal Credit Regulations are as they are described: draft. Lord Freud's thinking on supported housing is just thinking at the moment but it is interesting thinking.
We will also need to think about the definition of "vulnerable". We assume that there will be a relationship between what "vulnerable means and what "supported housing" means. For example, there are many people on JSA and not deemed "vulnerable" who are not only unable to hold down a job, they may also be in no position to look for one. They may have substance misuse or other issues which, given some time and structured input from a housing support & social care provider, can be overcome. Such people should fall into the "vulnerable" definition until such time as they have obtained or regained the independence they need to study, train or work.
The issue of service charges has thus far not really been discussed - until now. Please read on.
Service Charges for Supported Housing
The Draft Universal Credit Regulations devise a new approach to service charges for social housing; they say nothing about supported housing. They categorise eligible service charges for social housing as follows:
1. Services necessary to maintain the fabric of the accommodation
2. Cleaning of communal areas
3. Cleaning the exterior of windows where the tenant or someone on their behalf cannot do so
They state that anything relating to the supply of a commodity (e.g. water or fuel) would be deemed ineligible.
None of the eligible or ineligible charges identified above have been properly defined; however, over and above that there still remains the issue of whether supported housing is actually included within the Draft Regulations for Universal Credit, within which the approach to service charges for social housing is set out.

29. If Lord Freud's suggestions made at the 19th March meeting do bear fruit and supported housing is excluded from Universal Credit then it might be sensible to continue to administer benefits for vulnerable people through existing regulatory arrangements. This would mean that the proposed service charge policy in the Draft Regulations for Universal Credit would not apply to supported housing. Of course, the Government could still amend the existing Housing Benefit regulations that govern supported housing such that, even though it might be excluded from Universal Credit, the service charge regulations applicable to social housing within Universal Credit should also apply to supported housing.
To do so would be to miss a fundamental point in the funding of preventative enabling services in supported housing. Whether funding for such services is routed through Supporting People or the Housing Benefit funded service charge or any other route, it saves an awful lot of money to the statutory sector. This saving is in the form of reduced numbers of expensive emergency statutory interventions by the NHS, Social Services, the criminal justice system and the Homelessness department. These reduced interventions are as a consequence of much cheaper preventative services, which have better outcomes for vulnerable people, often funded in part at least through the Housing Benefit service charge. Only about 5% of the total Housing Benefit budget is spent on sheltered and supported housing and it's the only part of the Housing Benefit budget that provides a significant social return on investment.
Preventative intervention is low cost, effective and good for people and communities. Emergency intervention is high cost, reactive and often an unintended consequence of a failure to fund less expensive preventative interventions.
The SSAC Consultation on Universal Credit
The SSAC (Social Security Advisory Committee) is consulting on the Universal Credit Draft Regulations. SSAC is an independent advisory body of the Department for Work and Pensions and it is seeking your views on these regulations. Responses must be submitted by 27th July. You can view and respond to the Consultation here.
Again, the critical issue here is whether or not supported housing will be excluded from Universal Credit. If it is, then the question is: how will welfare entitlements for supported housing and vulnerable people be administered?
We think it is important for people to respond to the SSAC Consultation and make the following points, which are not exhaustive:
• "Vulnerability" needs defining: it should include those people who may be currently on JSA but have issues, perhaps hidden, that prevent them from seeking or maintaining employment or training.
• Targeted short-term interventions funded, at least in part, through the Housing Benefit service charge are a very cost-effective means of funding prevention and enablement.
• Subject to a sensible definition of "vulnerability" vulnerable people, including those in supported housing should be excluded from Universal Credit and have welfare entitlements administered locally.
• Direct payment of welfare entitlements to vulnerable people should not be the default position. It should be an outcome of preventative intervention where appropriate.
• Approximately 5% of the total annual Housing Benefit budget is payable to supported and sheltered housing. That 5% delivers a huge return socially and financially: it saves the statutory sector a fortune and impacts positively on the lives of vulnerable people and communities. It is a social investment which should be properly targeted to vulnerable people.
We hope that the Government, and the DWP as part of it, understands the argument and we think that the sector has a breathing space in which to make the case for the funding of

30. prevention as we at Support Solutions continue to do. The possibility of excluding supported housing from Universal Credit buys us more time whilst the Government grapples with the complexity of revenue for supported housing. If the Government decides to restrict service charges to supported housing in the way described in the Draft Regulations for Universal Credit, even though supported housing may be excluded from Universal Credit, then we still have a good idea about how the costs of intensive housing management and other essential housing services can be funded justifiably and legitimately.
It remains really important for accommodation-based service providers to think about allocating intensive housing management costs into the Housing Benefit service charge or rent. In fact it's probably never been more important as a means of sustaining and securing revenue and services in a time of change. You can find out more about this here.

31. Intensive Housing Management & the DWP Review of Housing Benefit for Sheltered & Supported Housing
Michael Patterson tells us about Intensive Housing Management, why Non-Profit landlords should think about it & the implications of the DWP Consultation on Housing Benefit for Supported & Sheltered Housing
Since this article was first written in October 2010 the notion of "Intensive Housing Management" has shot further up the agendas of providers of housing support & social care, and also of Supporting People teams needing to retrench their budgets without impacting negatively on services. We have also seen (and responded to) a Consultation from the DWP on the future of Housing Benefit for supported and sheltered housing. We therefore feel that it's time to add to this article, which has become extremely widely read and utilised within the sector.
How many of you reading this Briefing remember the term "Intensive Housing Management" and the significance it played in revenue for supported housing before Supporting People arrived in 2003?
For those of you who don't remember it, Intensive Housing Management was a term used to describe the types of housing management tasks that RSLs or their agency partners performed for vulnerable tenants in addition to general needs housing management tasks. It is a term that has very much come back to life! There is a working definition of Intensive Housing Management within the now defunct Housing Corporation's "Guide to Supported Housing" which we have copies of. We have developed our own definitions, which we continue to successfully use in submitting enhanced Housing Benefit claims on behalf of providers.
Rather longer ago than I care to remember supported housing schemes were funded through Housing Benefit. There was no such thing as Supporting People. If the scheme was projected to make a deficit then it was topped up by something called Hostel Deficit Grant (HDG), which was an open-ended subsidy paid by the Housing Corporation. The Government of the time became wary of open-ended subsidies like this and abolished HDG. It replaced it with a fixed subsidy called Special Needs Management Allowance (SNMA) or "sorry no money available" as some witty person at the Housing Corporation termed it at the time. This then became Supported Housing Management Grant (SHMG) and the idea and definition of Intensive Housing Management was born and defined by the accompanying "Guide to Supported Housing". In 2003, SHMG, which was a revenue subsidy payable to RSLs and their agency partners, was absorbed into the Supporting People budget never to be seen again. With it went Intensive Housing Management. Now let me remove my anorak, put down my "trainspotter's guide to housing revenue subsidies" and move on.
Discussion about Intensive Housing Management has reappeared with a vengeance in the past few years. This is primarily as a consequence of the work that Support Solutions has been doing with providers of accommodation and support that have lost revenue as a result of the retrenchment of the Supporting People budget. Supporting People, whilst it still exists, funds