Written evidence on the future of supported housing February 2017 Summary of key points Refuges form part of the national solution to tackle violence against women and girls. Refuge supports a national ring-fenced funding solution for both support and housing costs for specialist refuges. There should be an acceptance that women cross local authority boundaries to be safe. Increasingly Refuge is seeing a local connection criteria attached to refuge contracts; in other areas refuges are being decommissioned because they are not for local women. It is for this reason Refuge believes a local top up fund is wholly inappropriate for refuge accommodation The supported housing market is complex, there cannot be a one size fits all approach to funding supported housing. Refuges are unique and often have higher costs than other types of supported housing A longer term funding model is needed for refuges to give greater security to providers of refuge accommodation Refuge is concerned that as demand for supported housing grows local authorities will increasingly have to make difficult choices about how funding is allocated across different client groups. We believe refuges will not be prioritised The only way to move away from the current funding crisis for refuges is to transform the system. The Department for Communities and Local Government should lead on a new national strategy creating protected funding for both the support and housing costs for refuges Refuge asks that the Government makes a clear commitment to supporting a sustainable future for a national network of refuges and that the Department for Work and Pensions, and Department for Communities and Local Government work closely with specialist domestic violence organisations, such as Refuge, to develop the future funding model 1
Introduction Refuge is 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 4,600 women and children on any given day. Refuge runs 42 refuges across 21 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 those escaping domestic violence 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 an essential safeguarding role by putting in place robust protection plans which support 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 2
them to realise often for the first 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. National context Domestic violence refuges form part of a national network of services that underpin the Government s strategy for tackling violence against women and girls (VAWG); however there is no coordinated policy that regulates the funding of refuges for support or housing costs. This has led to inconsistency across the country with varying levels of funding for refuges where they are provided, and a complete lack of refuge provision in some local authorities. Refuges form part of the national solution to tackle violence against women and girls and therefore Refuge supports a national ring-fenced funding solution for both support and housing costs for specialist refuges. At a minimum, there should be agreed principles that will support the Government s National Statement of Expectation on how local authorities should address VAWG including: An acceptance that women must cross borders to be safe and that refuge accommodation should be open to a woman from any area Local housing and allocations policies must not discriminate against women who have experienced domestic violence. Housing authorities frequently turn women away who do not have a local connection Refuges should be part of the local commissioning solution for tackling domestic violence alongside community based services Local context Increasingly Refuge is seeing a local connection criteria attached to contracts, in other areas refuges are being decommissioned because they are not for local women. Refuge is concerned any local discretion on supported housing funding would result in the further closure of refuges. It is for this reason Refuge believes a local top up fund is wholly inappropriate for refuges. Refuge is concerned that under a local top up scheme local authorities would not prioritise refuges in their supported housing offer. We are increasingly finding that local housing policy and differing local connection rules act as a gatekeeping tool for victims of domestic violence. There is already wide variation amongst local authorities on what is considered to be a reasonable charge for refuge accommodation. Refuge is concerned that as demand for supported housing grows, local authorities will be under pressure to bring costs down in order to make their budgets stretch further. It is therefore critical that there is a national ring-fenced pot of funding for both support and 3
housing costs for specialist refuges supported by guiding principles alongside what is considered to be an acceptable level of funding for refuges. Refuge is concerned that as local authorities attempt to streamline processes there is a danger that funding models such as prime provider will be developed that could cause a narrowing of service providers and a move towards generic rather than specialist supported housing. Refuge is noticing a trend towards larger consortia service delivery arrangements which often place large social landlords at an advantage in the commissioning process. Refuge is concerned that consortia will see this pot of money as an opportunity to provide generic supported housing. It is therefore important to ensure that a ring-fence is placed around funding for specialist refuge provision only. Meeting need The Council of Europe recommendation is for at least one family place in refuge per 10,000 of the population. This country has always fallen below this recommendation. Refuge has serious concerns about local discretion on funding allocation for refuges. Based on experience of supported housing contracts, we know that whilst commissioners of domestic violence refuges understand the value of specialist services provided, they often focus only on their statutory homelessness duty to local women ignoring the benefits of specialist support for women and children. Local authorities regularly raise concerns about importing women in to their locality who may have complex needs and need to access statutory support services. They often completely ignore the fact that women will also be leaving their locality to escape violence and abuse. Refuge is frequently being asked to provide import/export data in relation to women s movements to justify/make the case for the continued funding of refuges, but only if enough local women are being supported. With devolved funding we only see this problem getting worse. This is why Refuge believes there should be a national ring-fenced funding pot for domestic violence refuges to cover both support and housing costs and that there should be a requirement for all local authorities to provide specialist refuge accommodation for women from anywhere in the country in line with the European Council of Europe (2011) recommendation of one family place per 10,000 head of population Refuge is also concerned that local authorities are already taking a generic across the board approach to the cost of supported housing and would continue to do so with this ring fenced pot. The supported housing market is complex, there cannot be a one size fits all approach to funding supported housing. 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 ring-fenced funding solution Local discretion has always been a problem for refuge services as often they do not house local women. This must change 4
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 Since 2011, Refuge has experienced funding cuts to 80% of its services, with some being cut by up to 50%. Over the last few years refuges across the country have experienced severe funding cuts; their very existence has been put at risk. In some local authority areas, refuges have been totally lost. The Government should work closely with specialist providers such as Refuge to ensure an adequate level of funding is in place. Refuge is concerned that as demand for supported housing grows local authorities will increasingly have to make difficult choices about how funding is allocated across different client groups. We believe refuge will not be a priority for some local authorities. Every local authority should be required to have a strategy in place to address violence against women and girls which includes providing safe, specialist housing provision for women fleeing domestic violence across borders. A dedicated lead commissioner should be responsible for overseeing the VAWG strategy and ensuring high quality specialist refuge provision, alongside community based services. Quality Refuge welcomes transparency and is committed to continuous improvement. All of Refuge s services operate at level A of the Quality Assessment Framework and are independently audited. We have a bespoke online case management tool with an embedded outcomes framework (IMPACT) that demonstrates outcomes for service users, value for money and social return on investment for our funders. More information about IMPACT can be provided on request. Local authorities already require substantial performance and outcomes monitoring information from Refuge. IMPACT has been designed to meet the detailed monitoring requirements of all our funders. We believe all providers should be able to demonstrate: A minimum quality threshold 5
Standardised outcomes data relevant to the client group they are working with Social return on investment Refuge is the country s largest provider of specialist services for those escaping domestic violence and other forms of gender violence. On any given day, Refuge supports over 4,600 women, children and men. Commissioners apply a high level of scrutiny to our services. We operate at level A of the Quality Assessment Framework, and we are Exor accredited. In 2013, Refuge commissioned NEF Consulting the consulting arm of think tank the New Economics Foundation to conduct an independent Social Return on Investment (SROI) evaluation of its services. The SROI attributes financial value to the outcomes women and children achieve with the support of Refuge, demonstrating the reward Refuge services reap for clients and society as a whole. SROI is a way of showing the impact of the money spent on a service and how cost effective it is. In 2016, Refuge asked us to carry out the same evaluation again using the same methodology. In 2013, we found that for every 1 invested in Refuge s specialist services, clients, their families and society at large received a social reward equivalent to 3.54. In 2016, this had increased to a reward equivalent to 4.94. A sample of 5,000 case files evidenced a saving to the state of 5.9 million. Although carrying higher unit costs, accommodation based services have the greatest impact of all Refuge services. Whilst only 21% of all Refuge clients use the accommodation based services, it accounts for 54% of the total social return. As part of the Transformation Fund the Home Office issued a National Statement of Expectations for the commissioning of VAWG services. In addition the DCLG fund to support refuge accommodation contained two documents relating to quality standards and priorities for domestic abuse services. The DCLG documents are a good starting point, but the fund is temporary and a permanent national solution to funding refuges is needed in order to sustain the national network of refuges. Short term accommodation There are particular challenges around meeting housing costs via Universal Credit within short-term or crisis services. These include waiting periods and payment schedules which will provide significant challenges to providers where customers only stay for a short period. Refuge costs should therefore sit outside of Universal Credit. Any new funding model should be flexible enough to allow a woman to move quickly between local authority areas. Many women have to move a number of times before they are safe. Once in a refuge the funding model should allow women and their children the time to recover from their experience. Refuge is concerned that some local authorities continue to place time limits on a woman s length of stay in a refuge. In some areas this has been as little as six weeks and in others a maximum of three months. This approach demonstrates a lack of understanding of the needs of women in refuge provision. 6
Refuge has serious concerns about the proposed model of local administration of a top up fund for short-term accommodation for the following reasons: There will be an incentive for local authorities to use a short-term accommodation top up fund to provide generic one-size fits all provision for a whole range of client groups. This type of generic provision is completely inappropriate for victims of domestic abuse, fails to meet their specific physical and emotional safety needs, and may put them in further danger - particularly if the accommodation for different service users is located in the same place Local authorities are increasingly placing local connection restrictions on access to supported housing provision. This is wholly inappropriate for refuges as women often move across local authority boundaries to be safe The model provides no security for refuges which are not commissioned by their local authority. It is likely that local authorities would prioritise the top up fund for services they commission There is no central guidance on the level of funding required for specialist refuge provision. Our experience is that local discretion on setting housing costs for refuges causes inconsistency in levels of funding across the country and depends entirely on individual officer decision making power. In addition providers which act as managing agents are beholden to registered social landlords who are often inconsistent in deciding what can and cannot be included in supported housing costs. As an example one social landlord we work with will not allow Refuge to include a proportion of office costs, whilst others do. Another landlord we work with dictated the level of intensive housing management Refuge can claim without reference to the needs of its client group. There should be clear guidelines from DCLG on supported housing costs for refuges informed by specialist housing providers such as Refuge Under the proposed model the allocation of housing costs for refuges would be based on funding for the current number of refuges, the level of which does not meet existing demand. Allocation of the top-fund through assessments of current service provision does not meet the identified national need, and projections of future demand, for refuge. It is recommended that a minimum of one family place in a refuge should be provided per 10,000 head of population (Council of Europe, 2011), but England is currently estimated to have a shortfall of 1793 bed spaces. Going forward it will be important to ensure a simple and uncomplicated payments system is in place that minimises bureaucracy. Currently claims for supported housing costs are made to local housing benefit departments. Our refuges have excellent relationships with these departments to ensure claims are processed efficiently and rents are paid directly to Refuge. We must ensure a simple mechanism remains in place for payment directly to the provider. It is absolutely essential that a national network of refuges exists across the country to enable women and children to escape domestic violence. The current model of local authority funding for refuges is 7
already placing the national network at risk. Local authorities have to make difficult decisions about which services to fund. Elected members in some areas are opting to fund local services for local women, choosing community based services over refuge provision. The DCLG funding for refuges whilst helpful is only offers a sticking plaster that allows local authorities to extend the life of refuges year on year creating an uncertain future for providers. The constant treadmill of recommissioning (often poorly executed) creates yet more uncertainty for specialist providers. A suggestion has been put forward that every local authority should be allocated a pot of money for refuge accommodation and that cross charging could take place so that the originating local authority would pay for a woman s stay in another authority. Refuge is wholly opposed to this for the following reasons: The very nature of refuge accommodation means that women may arrive and leave a refuge at short notice. Women may have to move locations a number of times and the burden of proving local connection for women could be time consuming Local authorities have varying criteria for local connection and so if a woman is transient, it could be impossible to prove local connection Local authorities already scrutinize and query housing payments unnecessarily This system would be bureaucratic and could cause a delay in payment Some local authorities may need to spend more than their allocation for women in refuges whilst others may not spend anything at all The only way to move away from the current funding crisis for refuges is to transform the system. The DCLG should lead on a new national strategy for protected funding for both the support and housing costs for refuges. Any new funding solution should include the following: Protected national ring-fenced funding for refuges Greater security of funding that moves away from year on year funding arrangements to a longer term funding model Clear guidelines on what a refuge is, the type of support it offers and the outcomes women and children achieve An acceptance that women will move across local authority borders to be safe and that local connection restrictions should not be applied Enough funding to ensure one refuge place per 10,000 Refuge asks that the Government makes a clear commitment to a sustainable future for a national network of refuges and that the Department for Work and Pensions, and Department for Communities 8
and Local Government work closely with specialist domestic abuse organisations such as Refuge to develop the future funding model. Tracy Blackwell Head of development Direct line: 0207 395 7772 tracy_blackwell@refuge.org.uk 9