Response to National Housing Federation Consultation on Funding Supported and Sheltered Housing This response is made by Refuge, the country s largest provider of specialist services for women and children escaping domestic violence and other forms of gender violence. Refuge opened the world s first refuge in 1971 in Chiswick, West London. 45 years later, Refuge supports 3,800 women and children on any given day. Refuge runs 40 refuges across 16 local authority areas including culturally specific refuges for South Asian and African-Caribbean women. A refuge provides safe, short-term accommodation and specialist support for women and children escaping domestic violence. A majority of residents in our refuge services are children. Refuge believes that refuges are unique in the context of supported housing. Refuges are so much more than a roof over a woman or child s head. They give them the building blocks they need to begin a new life, free from fear. Helping a woman to recover from what can be decades of prolonged abuse takes a great deal of time and expertise. Two women are killed every week in England and Wales by their partner or ex-partner and one in nine are severely physically abused each year. In 90% of domestic violence incidents, children are in the same or the next room. 38% of women calling the 24 Hour National Domestic Violence Helpline (run in partnership with Women s Aid) are in immediate danger and need to escape with their children to emergency safe accommodation. Last year, 41% of the women accessing our refuges had experienced threats to kill, and 50% had been strangled or choked by their abuser. Women who need to flee to the safety of a refuge are often in fear for their very lives. Victims of domestic abuse are at greatest risk of homicide when they are attempting to separate from a violent partner; 76% of homicides occur at the point of leaving or up to six months afterwards. Research by Refuge found that 49% of women accessing its services had experienced financial abuse, and the majority of those women were what the Government considers to be financially excluded. Around one-third of women accessing Refuge s services do not have a bank account. Often, at point of entry into a refuge, women will arrive with no money and few (if any) personal possessions for themselves or their children. Many women and children accessing refuge services have complex and overlapping needs. An estimated 27 women attempt suicide every day as a result of domestic violence and three women take their own lives every week in order to escape abuse. Our refuges support women with a wide range of complex needs including; substance misuse, forced marriage, honour -based violence, prostitution and sexual abuse. We also support women to seek remedies through the criminal justice system and provide support with child contact and residency orders. Refuges play a vital safeguarding role putting in place robust protection plans which safeguard the diverse needs of women and children. Refuges also provide vital peer support. Abused women and children are often extremely isolated by their perpetrators cut off from friends and family and other forms of support. Service users often tell us that before they came to a refuge they thought they were the only person experiencing domestic violence and that they believed the abuse was their fault. Being in the refuge environment enables them to realise often for the first 1
time - that they are not alone, and that they are not to blame for the abuse. Refuges facilitate this powerful recovery process. For all the reasons above, safe emergency accommodation must be protected from any changes to the supported housing model that might impact on a woman s ability to flee violence and abuse. Response to consultation questions a To what extent do the principles listed in section 5 above meet the needs of service users, providers and the Government? Is there anything we should be adding? Is there anything that should be removed or changed? Refuge agrees with the three overarching principles that 1. No-one with support needs should become homeless or end up in unsuitable accommodation 2. The actual housing, care and support costs of delivering a quality service will be fully met and funding will be flexible enough to meet changing levels of demand 3. Evidence of the quality and value for money of the services being funded will be clear to those who live in supported housing and to the taxpayer We also agree that the Government should remove the threat of the LHA cap to give providers confidence to develop and sustain supported housing schemes. The supported housing market is complex, there cannot be a one size fits all approach to funding supported housing. The Government should work closely with providers of domestic violence refuges to ensure an adequate and appropriate model of funding. Refuges are unique for the following reasons: They are part of a national network of services that underpin the Government s strategy for tackling violence against women and girls (VAWG) and therefore require a national funding solution In 2015-16, 668 of our residents were women and 765 were children. In 90% of incidents in family households where domestic violence occurs, children are in the same or next room. 50% of these children are directly abused. The effect on children s psychological well-being, ability to achieve academically, and long term development can be enormous and requires specialist accommodation and support Rent levels in refuge services can be higher than some other client groups. Women and children in refuges are extremely vulnerable with a high level of need, requiring intensive support. Refuge accommodation is a short-term emergency service. Throughput is much higher than in some other client groups and therefore a higher level of housing management is required Refuges are short-term emergency accommodation for women and children. Women in our services often arrive at a point of crisis, bringing with them few, if any, belongings. We have no option other than to provide essential items. In addition, our furniture, carpets, white goods etc. receive heavy wear and tear. Children s play areas and communal gardens are essential in helping children rebuild their lives and recover from the trauma they have experienced. We are extremely concerned that new regulations will not allow for rents to reflect the unique position of refuges providing family accommodation. The types of housing costs that are typically higher for our client group are: 2
o 24-hour call out, 365 days per year o Children s equipment, play areas and furniture o Heavy wear and tear on the fabric of the buildings o Provision of basic requirements for women and children who often arrive with just the clothes they are wearing o Provision of furniture, bed linen, towels etc. due to lack of belongings o Enhanced security such as CCTV and extra security on all entrances and windows o Intensive housing management due to high turnover and the crisis nature of our work Security in our refuges is also of the utmost importance Due to the high turnover of clients and the crisis nature of our work, intensive housing management is a key element of the service we provide to women. We recently carried out a time management survey with our staff which showed that staff working in refuge accommodation spend at least 20% of their time dealing with tenancy issues, collecting rent, ensuring health and safety is carried out to the required standard, working with the residents around communal living etc. The specialist nature of refuges means it is difficult to separate out housing management and support. If levels of service charges including intensive housing management are reduced funding will not cover costs. b In reviewing the funding of supported housing, what considerations are needed to ensure housing associations and lenders have the certainty they need to continue to deliver and develop supported housing? Refuge agrees that the current threat of a crude LHA cap should be removed to allow a viable solution for a very complex issue. Applying a one size fits all solution for all supported housing could have dire consequences for refuge provision. Refuge would argue that domestic violence refuges should be removed from this process. Welfare and housing regulation changes have resulted in uncertainty; social landlords are reviewing their property portfolios and are shifting risk and costs to managing agents. In some cases landlords are reviewing assets and are therefore unwilling to commit to long term arrangements whilst a review is taking place. This is causing uncertainty for small providers who act as managing agents and also for commissioners who rely on registered social landlords to provide the buildings for supported housing. This is happening in the context of increasing frequency of recommissioning of services by local authorities, leaving refuge in a position of not knowing if a refuge building will be available for the duration of a three year contract. c What is needed to ensure the new model works in situations where the landlord and support provider are different organisations? Refuge already works in the context of: Landlord who owns property and provides support Landlord who leases property and provides support Support provider operating under a housing management agreement providing care and support on behalf of the landlord Under each arrangement Refuge is responsible for housing management services and day to day repairs. All rent is paid directly to Refuge and is then paid to the landlord minus a management fee. Because of the nature of the work it is problematic for women and children to separate out housing management support from other support. Any future arrangements should reflect this model whereby Refuge would receive all payments and then pay a fee to the landlord. 3
d To what extent can alternative funding streams outside of the public sector, for example crosssubsidy, self-funding or private finance, play a greater role in helping meet the cost of supported housing? N/A e In a new funding system, how should the housing costs of supported housing be met within the context of the phasing out of Housing Benefit? Who is best placed to administer any new system? Domestic violence refuges are part of a national network of services that underpin the Government s strategy for tackling violence against women and girls (VAWG) and therefore require a national ringfenced funding solution. This could be administered locally. There are a range of commissioners who currently oversee commissioning for VAWG services in a local authority/region including Public Health, Police and Crime Commissioners and Community Safety. It should be noted that current funding arrangements in local authorities do not always work together to ensure an appropriate response to women fleeing domestic violence. There must be a joined up approach across all local authority strategies ensuring local policies complement each other to achieve the best outcomes for vulnerable women and children. There should be agreed principles that will support the Governments National Statement of Expectation on how local authorities should address VAWG including: An acceptance that women will cross borders to be safe and that refuge accommodation should be open to a woman from any area Local housing and allocations policies do not discriminate against women who have experienced domestic violence Refuges should be part of the local commissioning solution for tackling domestic violence alongside community based services Without these basic principles we are concerned local authorities would not prioritise refuges in their supported housing offer. We are increasingly finding that local housing policy acts as a gatekeeping tool for victims of domestic violence. Until the basic principles above are met we would not have confidence in local administration of a new funding system. f Which supported housing costs currently paid by Housing Benefit could or should be met via another non-benefit funding route? Intensive Housing Management g What criteria could be used to determine which accommodation should be eligible for enhanced benefit funding over and above general needs support? What criteria should be used to determine eligibility for individuals? N/A h Are there any types of services which could be moved out of the benefits system altogether and into another, potentially entirely local or national, funding approach? Refuge feels strongly that in order to protect refuges, a ring-fenced national funding solution should be put in place. This should be outside of Universal Credit. i What arrangements would be needed to give providers security and certainty around a localised funding stream for supported housing? 4
A localised funding stream for supported housing would need to be ring-fenced in the way that Supporting People was once ring-fenced. We know from experience if a ring-fence is not applied local authorities will elect to spend the funds on other things. This is particularly relevant to refuges. Many local authorities are not viewing refuges as local services for local women. They make decisions on the basis that they believe they are importing women with complex needs in to their area yet are not exporting women to other local authorities. This is a complete myth that is used to justify cuts to local domestic violence services. In 2012 Janet Bowstead produced a research report in partnership with Refuge to look at the journeys women are forced to make as a consequence of domestic violence. (women s journeys in response to domestic violence) 1 Key messages from the report were: Relocation to escape domestic violence is highly gendered - in 2009-10, of all people accessing any type of Supporting People support service due to domestic violence (n=26,883) only 1.6 per cent (n=434) were male. Most journeys were relatively short distances 45.6 % within the same Local Authority in terms of migration to other Local Authorities, half the journeys to services were under 18 miles Women were travelling as far as they needed to be safe, but trying to minimise the disruption if possible Trying not to relocate Trying to go to a place they could imagine themselves resettling There were over 10,000 woman-journeys across LA boundaries per year. There was no distinctive London effect (75% of London journeys stay within London) Focus is on leaving rather than arriving Women (often with children) leave everywhere, and are usually not able to aim anywhere in particular Focus is on trying not to change place Women are leaving because of the violence, so they are usually not wanting to go to a different type of place Spatial churn from and to everywhere Lack of net effect across the country a hidden internal migration Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in the UK Multiple stages of individual journeys Complex journeys over time, distance and space as women escape the abuser and try to resettle 1 Janet C. Bowstead (2013). The extent and implications of women s forced migration journeys to escape domestic violence, London Metropolitan University. 5
j Who should be responsible for any local pot? Is there a role for health and wellbeing boards? Should care and support funding be treated separately to any housing top-up? What might work best within two tier authorities? For refuges it should be the agency who leads on the strategy for violence against women and girls k To what extent should any localised system be nationally prescribed and what might be left to local discretion? For the reasons explained above there should not be local discretion on whether or not refuges should be funded at the expense of other provision. l How might outcomes be best integrated within any new funding system? Refuge is already substantially monitored by local authorities and Police and Crime Commissioners. We have a bespoke online case management tool with an embedded outcomes framework (IMPACT) that demonstrates value for money and social return on investment for our funders. When working with victims of domestic violence, it is virtually impossible to separate out housing management support from other forms of support and so we would want to see outcomes reporting for refuges integrated in to existing local authority reporting structures. m How might the Government more strongly address inadequate services which aren t meeting local need? What safeguards for service users might need to be in place? n How we can consistently demonstrate value for money and quality within any new model? What can we learn or retain from any existing or previous monitoring systems? Is there a place for greater regulation of the supported housing sector?. o How might a provider-led value for money benchmarking system operate? What should be the focus of such an approach? p What role might personalisation play within any future model? Is this an effective mechanism to deliver greater value for money? Which client groups are best suited to this kind of approach Refuge does not believe that personalisation is suitable for short-term crisis accommodation. 6