Local Government and Housing Committee

We will move on, then, to item 2, which is our first evidence session for the committee's inquiry into housing support for vulnerable people. We will now take evidence from support providers, and I'm very pleased to welcome, firstly, joining us virtually, Jim Bird-Waddington, who is the chief executive officer for Goleudy. And joining us here in the committee room, we have Sian Aldridge, director of operations for the Wallich; Sam Austin, chief executive for Llamau; and Emma Shaw, assistant territorial director of strategic operations and development for Wales and the west of England with the Salvation Army. [Laughter.] That's quite a title, Emma, isn't it?

I'm so sorry. [Laughter.]

Not at all. Let me begin, then, with some initial questions before we turn to other committee members. And firstly, on the strategic approach, really: in your view, does Welsh Government have a clear, long-term plan for the future of housing support? Who would like to offer us an initial view?

You're all looking at me. [Laughter.] Well, I think, obviously it's been really good in the last couple of years to see that there's been investment in the housing support grant for the first time. And I feel that we're starting to get to the place where the housing support grant should be in terms of investment, funding and the work—the difference it actually makes in communities across Wales. Obviously, there's the homelessness legislation coming in, and we're waiting to hear more about that, and in terms of the approach and how the housing support grant will play into that. I do think it's really important, and I'm really pleased that the housing support grant has still been ring-fenced. We only have to look across and see what happens in England to see the decimation of support services in England. So, I think it's really important that that ring fence remains and stays.

I do have some concerns, with the huge crisis at the moment that we're seeing in the number of people who are presenting as homeless, that we're seeing cuts to prevention services, and I have real concerns about that, because we can't keep dealing with the crisis. We have to be able to fund prevention services as well. So, I think it's really important, particularly now that section 180 funding and homelessness prevention funding is going in and has gone in to the housing support grant, that it is really strongly evidenced—that that is still promoted as a really important part of that whole funding stream.

I do think that it's really important as well that, going forward, we see—. Although it's really good to see the emphasis on rapid rehousing and housing first, there needs to be that whole range of housing support services that are funded from the housing support grant. There isn't a one size fits all. So, to answer your question, I think we're going in the right direction, but it really needs firming up and we need to have that investment keep going into the housing support grant to make sure that we can still make that difference across the communities of Wales.

Okay, Sam. Thanks very much. Would anybody like to add to that?

Yes. I would like to echo the thoughts around the homelessness prevention grant. It does cause some concerns, I think, that we're always moving the focus to the end goal, rather than preventing. Prevention should start way before tenancy support starts. So, it should start at really early stages for people. I think there is a great movement with the collections of the White Paper and looking at how we can work collaboratively, but I think we should not forget that we should be working complementarily with each other as services and there is a wide range of offering from the third sector, the statutory sector, but they should all complement each other and not become in friction with each other.

I think resourcing is a really key aspect to allow some of this work to be achieved, and we have to reflect on the impact of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 upon the third sector and how these safeguarding and often financial implications have had an impact upon our budget setting and how we view that, and the deficits going forward. Even with the increase in the homelessness support grant, there are still running deficits within my services, and we are still having to supplement them in order to make ends meet and cover our overheads. This is causing me great concern when I'm presenting new cases to the board and they're asking why we're not covering direct costs. Staff retention and well-being, with the complexities of people presenting, is also playing a part for us. We spend a huge amount on agency costs because of staff illness and having to cover staff and recruitment concerns.

I think there has to be some connectivity. I applaud the way that some of our work is going with health. I understand the limitations that we have in respect of the criminal justice systems, but this is often down to the goodwill of people and it's not written in job-role profiles or placed as a statutory obligation on different statutory services, and that does cause concern for us in order to continue our work with the ever-increasing complexities of people, but also of systems. So, there need to be some systemic changes and connections.

Okay, Emma, and Sian.

To echo what Sam and Emma have said, and to add to that, I think Sam picked up, and Emma, the finances, and every year we all come together as a sector, led by Cymorth, to campaign for the HSG, just to get what we had the year before, and hopefully an increase, and I think we need to move towards multi-year funding for HSG, because we can't plan. Take this year, for example, in the autumn statement, we were given the news around the national insurance contribution increase. We didn't know then what our funding would be to be able to cover that, and it takes a lot of resource and time from all of us, and particularly Cymorth, to campaign each year, so multi-year funding is needed.

I think, again, picking up on housing first and rapid rehousing, they're fantastic approaches. We all know that it works, but it does, obviously, rely on housing supply, as well as good-quality support, and we worry that the housing supply isn't there to meet the demands of that and to be able to roll that out effectively.

We're really supportive of the principles underpinning the HSG, and particularly, as Sam mentioned, around prevention being the most effective and most cost-effective, but what we're seeing is the records of presentation are so high that we've moved away from preventative work and it's firefighting all of the time. So, we really need to find a way to focus back on prevention, because that's how, long term, we will end homelessness in Wales.

I think that it's vital that the White Paper recommendations aren't watered down in the final Bill, and we need to assess and better assess future needs for housing with collecting data. What are we doing with that data to inform that in the future?

Did you want to come in on this specific point, Siân?

No.

Shall I bring Jim in first?

Yes.

Jim.

Hi. I agree completely with the comments made by my colleagues. I think that, in terms of Welsh Government's direction, there is a very welcome movement towards models like rapid rehousing and housing first. I think it's worth noting and looking at the fact that this has been talked about for an incredibly long time, and that it was pioneered in the United States and northern Europe quite some time ago, to the extent where there have been several longitudinal research studies that demonstrate that these approaches work.

There's a cautionary note as well, in that one of the pieces of work that Crisis Liverpool did some years ago, again a piece of research, demonstrated that, where these models were really successful, it was where they'd stuck quite faithfully to the original model, as developed by Sam Tsemberis and his colleagues in New York, and how that had been used across countries like Finland, other northern European countries, and massive swathes of Canada, to great effect. So, I think that, whilst the direction of travel is welcome, there are all of the issues that my colleagues have pointed out in terms of housing supply and funding. But I think that, if we're going to spend the amounts of public money that would be required to bring the model to life in full, my encouragement would be for the Welsh Government to pay close attention to the efficacy of the models being commissioned and then how they actually run to ensure that the results come, in terms of their intended outcomes.

Okay, Jim. Thank you. Siân.

I just wanted to pursue the question of the preventative aspect and the fact that the money for preventative services is now within that support pot, and that you are concerned that that means that we're moving away from that preventative element, whereas, in truth, we should be investing more, potentially, in that preventative side. How do we, therefore, ensure that that preventative funding is spent appropriately? Do we need some sort of guidelines from the Government, perhaps, about the use of the HSG from now on, and some sort of guidance or instruction to make sure that that preventative work that happened through a different pot of money previously doesn't get lost now because it's all in one place?

Thank you. I think you're absolutely right—there does need to be guidance. Clearly, we need to be supporting people in crisis and we need to be doing the prevention, and I've always said that you have to fund both until the balance tips. The problem is that we've had 15 years of austerity and we've only had two years of proper inflationary uplifts, so the pot of money isn't enough. That is a huge problem, because we need to be investing in the current services so that we keep the colleagues who have got all of this experience and are working really well with the people who need support, but we also need further investment in those prevention services, because what we're seeing is that local authorities, who are now trying to balance the books and trying to work out what they're doing, are cutting prevention services.

One of the other problems that we have with the housing support grant is that it's funded for people aged 16 and above. Now, we know that a number of adult people who are street homeless first became homeless before the age of 21—there's a lot of research into this—and may have been homeless up to three times before the age of 21. If we can go back and go and work in schools, and do the work—. You know, at Llamau, we've got a preventative programme called Upstream Cymru that triages all pupils of a school age and can work with those who are most at risk of becoming homeless. It's something that has come from Australia and it's done in Canada and America, and it has been seen to reduce youth homelessness by 40 per cent. If we can get in really, really early and give people the skills not to become homeless in the first place, then we're stopping the adult homelessness population, or we're massively reducing it. So, you have to have that investment, but, equally, you have to have the investment in crisis services as well.

Is it a mistake to put them all in one pot?

Yes—well, I think the problem has been that the homelessness prevention funding hasn't been increased at all. I think both Emma and Sian have talked about running deficit services. We've been running deficit services for years. Effectively, we're propping up the public sector, and I think that's a huge concern for us, because at what point do we say, 'These services aren't viable?' We've been propping up homelessness prevention services for years because the funding hasn't increased for a really long time. Housing support services have only just started to have an increase in the last couple of years. So, yes, if they were separate, great, but fund them properly, or make sure that, within that pot of HSG, there is clear direction that prevention services must be funded properly as well.

Okay. Sian.

I'd echo that, because what we're seeing is record levels of people in temporary accommodation, and it's not surprising, therefore, that local authorities have to react to that, to support those people who need emergency support, but we have to invest in that prevention. As Sam said, the first services often that are cut at the moment are things like floating support services, which, actually, are preventative services because they're about keeping people in their homes. So, we must either have guidance, or a separate ring fence within the HSG that is really funnelled towards prevention, to do exactly what Sam's talked about.

I would welcome guidance. I think there is a shift in the homeless community. We have very traditional homeless people, if we say that—as in people that have maybe moved through the system and then found themselves homeless. We also have families on incredibly low incomes, and we have—. Even some of our staff members are presenting with losing their own tenancies. I think we have to acknowledge that there is a shift, and there does need to be a focus, right in the heart of the communities as well, to prevent those people who are on the cusp of entering into homelessness that otherwise would have been safeguarded somehow. We also reflect on them, otherwise the pressures on family into homelessness, children into homelessness, will also increase.

I applaud the upstream work. I think it's a very good piece of work that Llamau do within schools, and I think it should be that, combined with other interventions for single adults, and also for families within communities. That, for me, has to start within the community. It should start before they hit tenancy support, and we should be there. We should be there to guide, because we could stop that tenancy and we could resave it. If you lose your tenancy today, it's incredibly hard for anybody to regain a tenancy.

Okay. Thank you very much. Peter.

Thank you. Good morning. I want to look at service pressures. I get a good flavour that there are pressures. But what are the main service pressures going to be over the next 12 months, and how are you, as a sector, planning on responding to those pressures?

Do you want to go first?

Yes. I'll start with the financial pressure. I think it's very apparent—and probably all of us, and Jim, will talk about it—that the increases on the national insurance contributions has a huge impact on organisations. Our wage bill at the Wallich goes up by around £0.5 million because of it. So, there's pressure to make those services add up so that we can still deliver the same capacity and have the money to pay our staff.

I think that staff well-being and burn-out is a massive risk. Our staff do incredible work. They're paid usually—the front-line staff—the real living wage, if we're lucky; we have to fight for that each year. I think that we need to be valuing those staff for the incredible life-saving work that they do. They're multiskilled and often are not recognised as that, and we see our staff burn out time and time again, which puts extra pressure on us to deliver services, and the financial pressures that come with that.

Recruitment and retention are on the same lines. It's really hard to recruit and retain staff, because of the financial pressures, and, as Emma's already talked about the well-being, we see staff who are themselves at risk of homelessness, and they're trying to support others in their homelessness journey, and that's just not right. I know Cymorth Cymru is here later, and they've got evidence taken from the sector around front-line workers and the troubles that they face financially, emotionally and in their health terms in doing the job. So, we must recognise staff, and we must put a framework in to ensure that staff are paid the right wage for the job that they do.

I would absolutely echo all of that. It's a huge challenge at the moment to run services, to set budgets, as a charity like Llamau, and to make sure that we're able to pay people the amount of money that they deserve to be paid, given how low the contracts that we're given are. And whilst it's great to have a contract that is perhaps three years plus two, or four plus one, when we go out to commissioning, it's actually really hard to get the additional income in, as costs have gone. And I think, in the last four or five years, nobody could have seen four or five years ago how inflation would increase, the cost-of-living increase. It's great to see the increases in the national living wage and real living wage, but we have to pay for all of that.

And I think the other issue is the way that contracts are funded. All the support providers that you'll see today are investing in reflective practice, psychologically informed principles, having clinical psychology support. That's not funded; we're funding that ourselves. That's funded outside of housing support grant, and yet our commissioned contracts expect us to be able to prove that we're providing psychologically informed support to the people that we support, and reflective practice to our colleagues.

We also don't get paid enough for the amount of management costs that we have to put in. Particularly with the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, I think Emma mentioned that the amount of administrative work that comes along with that is huge. You know, we work along with it, but there isn't that financial—. We're not allowed to put that money into our contracts when we're filling out our SPAs every year, which local authorities ask us to do. The complexity of support needs has massively increased. Llamau's two main client groups are young people and women experiencing domestic abuse, or women with complex needs. Since COVID, we've seen a massive impact in behaviours, in impacts of trauma, in how it's presenting through behaviours. For the first time ever, we're seeing young people who are using weapons and threatening other young people and colleagues with weapons. We've never seen that before. We're seeing young people who are really struggling to control their behaviours because they've not had the right support they've needed before they've come into our services. So it's really, really challenging—the level of mental health, the suicide ideation that my colleagues work with day in, day out, of people who are making serious attempts on their life within projects. The impact of trauma on our colleagues, who are paid the lowest amount of money doing that work, is significant. And yet, given the level of professionalism that they have to bring to their role, they're not remunerated in the way that they should be in terms of that. And so it's a massive challenge, and the impact of vicarious trauma is really huge on our colleagues at the moment.

I would agree with all of that. I think there is a slight hiddenness to our staff teams. People focus on and stigmatise those who are homeless, and the presentation of those maybe on the streets, or the interactions that they've had with people. Our staff appear behind other entities, apart from, obviously, our outreach, and I think, therefore, we need to bring them to the forefront. It needs to be highlighted, the work that they are doing.

I think third sector and faith groups have stepped into the gaps for many, many years. I would probably say faith groups have done it for over 150 years, where they were seeing the gaps, and they've stepped into those realms. But our boards are running out of money and there's not enough resource for us to be able to continue running up these types of deficits.

I would add in something to the group's discussions about the renting homes Act. We've touched on everything else—we've touched on reflective practice, we've touched on staff well-being, retention of staff, training. We put a huge amount into our training budgets to keep our staff healthy and ambitious, and the want, in our events. But if we think about the renting homes Act, some of these pressures have been named by our staff team, but also by some of our clients, our residents that reside within our buildings. We no longer have the ability to move people under safeguarding measures, so that has been really restrictive. We also cannot address personal payment arrears in the same way, so that is no longer something that can be utilised under the renting homes Act as a means of moving people. An example of this is that, within one of my services currently, our resident debt is £94,000. That is a historical one, and people may be staying with us longer. But even if that is a year's debt, that's still something that has to sit within our budget; it doesn't just evaporate away. And then that puts on all the other good things we're able to do for our staff team and our residents to enhance their living experience, and hopefully move them into a community and to be sustainable there.

Yes. Jim wants to come in.

Yes, Peter. Jim.

Yes, I agree with everything that's been said on the part of my colleagues there, but I think one of the challenges, to be frank, is the commissioning environment. It's not one that really invites a great deal of innovation, I think. I understand completely that there are legal and other bureaucratic pressures on local authorities who commission all the housing support grant work. It's immensely frustrating when you offer a solution to the stated problem that local authorities face, which is a lack of appropriate accommodation with support and people who are in B&Bs in the many hundreds, and the response is, 'No, we can't look at that', because there's a red tape measure in place that means that public money gets spent on the bed and breakfast.

When I came into the sector in 1992, I worked for an organisation called Short Life in Cardiff whose raison d'etre was to absolutely keep people out of bed and breakfasts, because even then it was deemed as the worst possible solution for anybody in temporary accommodation, and having their own front door and their own space was understood to be a much better transition into independent living and to lessen the traumatic effects of homelessness.

Thank you for that. What I'm hearing is that there are some serious financial pressures and you're going to be right on the limit, and that's going to really affect your capability to continue. Are you starting to visualise contraction in what you can deliver, because how can you manage?

I think, as a sector, we're seeing a lot of organisations not going for contracts that just don't stack up financially. As I said earlier, some of our prevention services have been cut for funding. We can redeploy staff, but it's really, really sad to see that that's happening. So, yes, I think there are huge pressures. There are also pressures that we have where, because we work in Llamau with a lot of— obviously we do a lot of work with—young people, some of those services are part funded by children's services, but they're commissioned by housing support grant teams. So, where we've got those services, whilst we might get the uplift—. And we're still waiting to hear; we're trying to set budgets for the next financial year, which starts in a couple of weeks, and we're still waiting to hear how much money we're going to get next year—so, how difficult that is in terms of passing that with the board of trustees. But where we've got joint-funded services contracts, whilst we might get an uplift from the housing support grant, we're not getting the uplift from children's services departments, but we still have to pay everybody the same. So, it makes it really complicated and really difficult, and it's a huge, huge challenge.

I think that's really helpful, to get that context, because there's a consequence when money runs out. Thanks for that. I'm conscious there are a lot of questions to go through and, Jim, you started talking about the commissioning and are local authorities commissioning the right sort of services, and that was the next question that I was going to come on to. I think we got a good flavour from you in that regard. Is there anything that anybody else wants to add on whether authorities are commissioning the right sorts of services?

Yes, please. Yes, we need to see a change in how they're commissioned. We need cross-sector, multidisciplinary services commissioned across housing, health, criminal justice, because we know homelessness is a symptom often, and it has to have that involvement across different sectors. The commissioning system seems to struggle to fund collaboration, even though they want that. We know that we need to work in partnerships to create the best outcomes, but it's still seen primarily as a housing fund, it's not open to non-housing organisations, and the same is also true, then, for other sources of funding across health and social care. So, a first step would be to support local authorities and health boards to fund more multidisciplinary teams. And then the last thing I'd like to say on that is about the overly competitive nature of the process. We appreciate there has to be a process, but, often, we would like to work more collaboratively, but the process as it is, with the competitive nature of it, it's not conducive to doing that. And I think we're all here for the same aim, and if there was allowance for that in the commissioning process, we'd see innovation. As Jim said, there's no room for innovation in the way it's currently commissioned.

Yes. Just to add to that, I think that what should be happening, through commissioning, is that services should be commissioned for how much it costs to run a service. We are seeing tenders going out where the cost versus quality is 60 per cent cost, 30 per cent quality. We're dealing with people's lives here; quality should absolutely be at the forefront of any commissioning service. But I also think that, housing support grant teams, they're often pushed into recommissioning and retendering when they might have an incumbent provider they're really, really pleased with. Obviously, we have to be able to show that we can meet outcomes, that we're demonstrating value for money and all of that sort of thing, but they're often pushed, then, into retendering through procurement departments within the local authority—there's a big push for them to do that. And then it just becomes this exercise that costs everybody even more money to do, and it's just really, really—. It's hugely time consuming. Again, we don't get funded to spend the amount of time that we have to to do that, and it's really difficult.

I think the other thing is that, as I said earlier, in a lot of the commissioning, the funding for training, for reflective practice, for the case-management systems that we're expected to have to be able to demonstrate our outcomes, there's not full-cost recovery in that. There's not full-cost recovery in the layer of management that is needed to support the staff that are delivering on the front line, really. So, I think it is really difficult. I would also welcome the fact that—. You know, housing support grant is not just about the bricks and mortar and helping people; you have to provide a holistic service, but the holistic part of it is never funded. So, that makes it really difficult.

I would agree wholeheartedly. I think there should be a consideration of how—. If we're wanting to work together with health and other parties, and criminal justice and other third sectors, then we need (1) time—we need space to be able to do that—and we need a service specification that allows that and other organisations to be able to come in and have those conversations. I think, across Wales, with all the contracts coming out, I've stepped away from two or three, because they haven't met—. Financially, I wouldn't have been able to present that, even, to the board. It wouldn't even have got through my first level, because of how much what we class as mission funding we would have needed in order to make that contract work. I think we have to hold dear the quality that we offer and not let that slip: it's not fair on our service, our organisation, but, ultimately, it's not fair on our clients, the people that we serve.

Also, the other difficulty with recommissioning is that times get pushed on, so as much as we like a longer term contract, and those contracts to reflect inflation, not to be static—. So, one thing that would also put us off would be a three-year contract plus two, but with no mention of how that's going to be inflated throughout the term of that contract. Would it mean that we would be constantly running in deficit? The other side of that is that, if we have a contract that expired four years ago, we have year-on-year extensions, so we never really know where we're at. So, again, budget funding or budget setting becomes quite a challenge for us, going forward.

Thank you for that. One quick question for you, Sam, if I can, and it's related to your written evidence, when you talked about the high cost of rent and service charges as a barrier to work for young people in supported accommodation: do you want to expand quickly on that a bit?

Yes, sure. So, the housing support grant, how it's generally funded in static projects, rather than floating support, is that we're expected to put 80 per cent of our support costs, staffing costs, into the housing support grant contract, and then 20 per cent of those staffing costs in housing management, although housing management is actually—. Because of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, the amount of work is actually bigger than that. So, as a support provider, we have a management agreement with housing associations or local authorities. So, housing associations pay the rent and then they give us service charges, and then we've got other service charges on top of that, so rents are actually really, really expensive. But, actually, what we're doing at Llamau is we're trying to get young people work-ready, so, when they are work-ready, it's too expensive for them to actually work in supported accommodation. So, I think it's a huge conundrum in terms of the way that the funding model has developed over the years.

We're also under huge scrutiny with the housing benefit department, so we have to be able to evidence to the penny—and I'm not exaggerating—to the penny of a spend. And I think, our rents for this financial year, the last local authority approved them in November, so that means we were waiting from April to November to have those rents approved—so, waiting for that money to come through. So, it's a huge juggling act, and it's really, really difficult, but, ultimately, the people that are really affected are those young people, women, and the people living in that accommodation that you're really trying to get to that point where they can be economically active, because that means they're less likely to have repeat homelessness, but the rents are so high and service charges are so high that it's really difficult.

Thank you for that. That was valuable. Thank you, John.

Thank you, Peter. Okay. Lee Waters. Sorry, Siân.

Just before moving away from the area of commissioning services, I was interested in hearing more, perhaps, from Jim. He was complaining about the commissioning environment. We've spoken about the process, but the commissioning environment and the lack of opportunity to bring forward innovative solutions—could you just expand a little bit on that? What sort of commissioning would lead to better solutions?

Okay. First of all, I do have sympathy for the commissioning teams in local authorities, because I think they are, in turn, under the same sorts of constraints that frustrate us, really. I suppose commissioning has evolved enormously since the advent of the Supporting People programme, probably since 2003, when there was much more of a move towards formal tendering, which is fine. There was slightly more innovation prior to that. Some examples would be, at that sort of time, I used to actually—. I was a former colleague of Sian's and worked at the Wallich, and we used to listen to the local authority's particular challenge and come up with a service proposal to fix that particular problem; we'd have a discussion with them. When I was a colleague of Sian's, we did this, certainly in Ceredigion, certainly in Llanelli, where there were very specific needs that communities had, and we were able to design something that had much more of a holistic vision for how, at the time, people would move through a range of services and how we'd put in specialist support and one thing and another. Now, since January this year, my organisation has completed three tenders, and I would say that the major shift is that each one of them is so prescriptive that it's almost like, if you looked at it from afar, and you'd not been steeped in the sector, you'd think, 'Well, why would you tender it at all, because it's so prescriptive, you might as well do it yourself?' If you equate what we do to the private sector, and you put out a tender for cleaning, what you want, at the end of it—it's a question of how clean you want it; not how tall the cleaner is or what colour shirt they're wearing. So, I think that the conversion is often—. And it comes up in the monitoring, and I know that you'll come on to data collection and regulation and those kinds of topics, but if the conversation is around what the worker is doing and the culture of perceived control over the service, and the expectations of the 'how you do it' are being prescribed, you simply can't be innovative. And as my colleagues have already said, these are some of the lowest paid jobs in the Welsh economy, and we're expecting people to take some of the most undiagnosed and complex social problems and make a manifest and sustainable difference to people's lives, where, perhaps for 25 years of their life, everything has failed for them. So, this is no trivial task.

And I realise that perhaps—. I think you did ask, 'What kind of commissioning?' Put simply, something with a much more open brief, where what is described is the outcome that's wanted rather than how you want it done. Not you, but the commissioner says, 'Well, we've got 25 people with what we perceive as incredibly complex needs. We want them to have a better life. What would you—?' And pose that question. I’m grossly over-simplifying the matter, obviously, but I think, rather than saying, 'Well, at 7 o'clock in the morning, you'd need this activity', and again I'm exaggerating, but it does feel, to me, incredibly prescriptive. And this is not just at the commissioning stage, but, as Sam said, when you have to sit down and negotiate your SP8s and you say, 'Well, this year, we could do this’, and the commissioner, whether they've got the will or not, they can't do it for reasons of regulatory constraint, or whatever. And I think that that's a feature of our sector that was not the case 25 years ago, when there was a great deal of innovation and a lot less money, and some great things were done.

Okay, Jim, we’ll have to move on because we've got 18 minutes left for this session, and we're about halfway through the questions. Lee.

I just want to ask about monitoring and evaluation. All your evidence talks about the inconsistency in the way that data is collected and applied: Welsh Government requiring outcome framework, local authorities using a different set of data, and none of that being published, which seems like a pretty grim situation overall, really. So, would it be fair to say, based on your experience, that data is not being used to drive service performance? And what would you suggest that we might recommend to improve the way data is used to monitor and evaluate?

If I can go first, the first thing I think we need to see is some uniformity across how that data is captured in the first place. Outcomes monitoring is collected biannually from local authorities, but each of them will ask for it in a different way, a different format, and for different information. So, given that we're working towards the outcomes framework, if we could have a uniform way of doing that, time and resource could be saved, as well as then the quality of that data would be more consistent, and I'm sure we could do more with that information. I think that a lot of data is captured by lots of different organisations, and I'm not sure how that translates, from a Welsh Government perspective, into delivering services, planning for future services. We don't see the evidence of that. All we see is quite a big ask in terms of the data we have to give, with no real insight into how that is being used to do exactly what you said, and that's to plan better services for the people that really need it.

And why do you think that is? Why do you think you have no insight?

I don't know. It's something we've talked about for a very long time. Every forum where we can, we talk about this uniformity of monitoring, because we don't end up—. We challenge local authorities, to ask: why do you need this information that's so different to another? I'm not quite sure I've got the answer. I'm not sure if any of my colleagues do. So, that's a concern for us: we're collecting a lot, and this is data on very sensitive information about individuals, which we capture, about their lives, about their futures, and we’d like to see that being used in a way that is really planning for the future services that are needed, but also understanding why we’re collecting and giving that data.

Yes, I totally agree. I think that, on a local level, when you’ve got a commissioned service, the relationship that we have with our commissioners is a really good one. They know the young people and women in Llamau that are coming into our services, they will come out and they will audit, they will look at what we’re doing, and they can see the evidence and the distance travelled of that person.

I think that when you’re collecting it universally, as Sian has said, all these different bits get added on. In some local authorities, we have to use their data management system, but if we use their data management system, then we can’t capture as an organisation to see how well we’re doing and compare our organisation and one service in one local authority to another local authority. There’s a lot of duplication that goes on, because people are very clear about how they want that data and information captured.

But I think the other thing, the caveat, which is really important is that when you collate all that data, you shouldn’t be using the data to compare one against the other. It’s like comparing apples and pears, because although it’s housing support services, everybody’s different, every individual is different. They’re all starting from a different starting point. Some people will progress at—. For some people that we work with, it can take months for them to even feel safe; they’ve never felt safe before. So, that’s huge. So, if you’re suddenly expected to get somebody into a job within six months, or just feeling safe—because if somebody’s not feeling safe, they can’t even start to think about tackling, perhaps, substance misuse issues that they may have, or anything like that. So, everybody that we’re supporting is starting from a different point. So, I don’t think you can use the data to compare a service that, perhaps, Llamau does, to a Wallich service, or a Salvation Army service, because that is comparing different things. You have to look at the individual distance travelled. But there’s a huge amount of subjectivity in that.

And when we had the old outcomes system, I can remember asking Welsh Government, ‘Can you explain what each level should be?’ and they couldn’t give us an answer. So, if we’ve got an outcome system that is given to us, and you can’t explain what each level means, that means that everybody is filling it in differently. So, there’s no—. It’s a crazy system.

Is the fact that there’s no regulation in Wales, like Scotland and England, and therefore no inspection, part of that problem? Would that help it?

Well, there is inspection, and I think there’s a misnomer that we’re not regulated. Housing support grant services can only be commissioned via local authorities. So, they commission it. They’re clear, as we’ve already talked about, about what they want or don’t want in that service. And then they come out, and they monitor, so there are regular monitoring meetings. There are regular audits where they come out—

But it's not to a consistent framework.

Well, there is a framework, but what I would say is that it’s not delivered consistently, and that’s often because of the size of different housing support grant teams in the local authorities. So, some have very large teams, where they’ve got people that can come out and audit, and with others, it might be one or two people, and it’s very different. But I would say that I’m confident that our commissioners across Wales know how well we are doing, and know where we need to improve or where we’ve got really good practice. So, I think there is that regulation, but I would say it’s not uniform.

Well, can you help me understand this then, because my understanding is that, in Scotland—? There’s a care inspectorate in England, and national care standards in Scotland; we don’t have an equivalent to either of those.

No.

We have the housing support grant—

Yes, but those are grant outcomes rather than—

And we have a regular—. There's a framework, isn't there?

We're currently working on, with Welsh Government, supported housing standards for housing benefit, and a lot of the standards there are very—. They look across how we support people, the condition of buildings that we provide services from. And that’s another level of assurance, I think, that will come into practice, and it’s a direct result of what’s happened in England in terms of people misusing some housing benefit care and support elements. But that’s—

But that’s because the ring fence went.

—because the ring fence was taken away.

So, in England, when the ring fence went, the teams that were monitoring disappeared in local authorities. So, that enabled a free-for-all in England, where people who were quite unscrupulous were setting up schemes and claiming lots of housing benefit, saying that they were providing support when they weren't. But we have partners in England who actually—. I know Emma will be able to talk about this. The system that's been brought out in England is where people have had to have—. You can have bed spaces that you're allowed to put people in, and some bed spaces in a single project are ones you're allowed to put people in through a form of housing support grant, and others you're not, so the system in England isn't brilliant, is what I'm saying.

I'm not suggesting it is. I'm suggesting that it seems to me from the evidence so far that the Welsh system is a bit of a hotch-potch.

I guess to talk through this, I think the one thing I would be curious to understand is if that has enabled the other localities to have a better system and a better outcome. I think that would be something that would be important. I know my colleagues in Scotland have many regulations. Every person that comes into support has to be registered, so they have many. Some of them are very good guidelines to follow, but they have a lot of different measurements within their infrastructure already. I think the one thing that I would be conscious of is not to add anything into a system that isn't working, but a review of the system would be good. The system is fudgy and complex at the moment, and it's not consistent, and that is something that we've all echoed.

What would you focus a review of this system on? What would you want to get out of that review?

I think it was to understand the purpose of it, so what is the purpose of asking for this information and how are you using that, in order for us to enhance or better analyse the system that people are living and working within. I think, for us, it becomes so administrative and not having anything back, that we don't understand how that is used to improve services or understand where the money needs to go and what needs to happen with it. So, I think reviewing it is a good thing and it's something that we would call for, if there were a single model, whatever that model would be, but to make sure that it is a complementary one, that it's one that enhances information and gives us the ability to discuss what's needed and what's working and what's not working.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Lee. Siân.

We have—

Oh, sorry, Jim, did you want to come in? Sorry. Sorry, Jim.

That's fine. I think the question of whether the lack of inspection and regulation introduces risk for service users is for me the pertinent point. So, our services that are regulated by Care Inspectorate Wales have lots and lots of mechanisms within the requirements that will really protect clients, and I think that that's a distinctly more formal system than the one for housing support grant-funded projects. I don't really see the point of reinventing the wheel, and I think adding to an already—. I've already criticised the system for perhaps an over-bureaucratic nature. I think replacing it with—. I think what some of my colleagues are suggesting really is replacing it with something simple, fit-for-purpose and straightforward.

But the example is that the workers in our care-managed projects have to be registered with Social Care Wales, and any mischief can mean that membership of that body can be taken away and it would stop anyone who's unfit to work in that sector working again. There aren't, that I can see, any kinds of safeguards that would protect people in the same way in the ordinary support world, as it were.

So, I think that we all talk all the time about our passion for the work and the wish to have our quality of service and the quality of experience that our clients get to be the very best, so I think that any kind of regulatory or other system of monitoring should really focus on the well-being of the clients in the way that—. Yes, the care standards one is also quite bureaucracy heavy, but it does give the clients the chance to have a direct voice with the regulator. It is part of a formal system, it's part of legislation, and I think I do believe that it does work.

Could I come in very quickly on that? What we have to be really careful about is that we don't create a system that is not only overly bureaucratic, but—. We run a children's home, where we've got young people who are the same age as the young people in our supported accommodation. The cost of the staff, because they have to be registered, is so much more than the cost of—. So, we have to be careful that we don't end up creating a system that costs so much more that we're doing even less. I just wanted to say that, please.

Okay. Thank you very much. Siân.

I wanted to talk about cross-sector working. You've touched somewhat on that issue. We know that the pattern is patchy. There are pockets of good practice, but things are inconsistent across Wales. How can we improve this? Don't talk too much about the problem, but focus, if you could, on how we can improve things. There was mention in the White Paper that this would be a focus in the new Bill. Is that, perhaps, one way forward?

If I could start, yes, the proposals in the White Paper are a way forward. It places a duty on public bodies to act. But, I suppose, looking at solutions, I think that the collaboration isn't in the commissioning— it isn't in that—and that's the root of it. We've got pockets of good practice, as you say, with the National Lottery, for example, on their ending homelessness fund—allow time and, importantly, money to develop those collaborative partnerships. I don't see that in the commissioning here, which is a real barrier. A tender might come out and we might have only four weeks to respond to that tender. It's not enough time to really form those partnerships that are needed to provide the best service for the people it's trying to support. So, you see lots of partnership going on, but it's generally goodwill that makes those happen, and a want to provide the best service. It's not necessarily designed within the commissioning structures, the finances and the time taken to do that. So, one solution would be to allow for that within commissioning.

Yes, and I think, following on from that, the relationships that individuals have is what makes those partnerships work. But, when somebody moves on, you've got to really build that relationship back up again. I think being able to call people to multi-agency meetings and almost compel them to attend—. Quite often, we'll get people around the table, but it might be that mental health services won't attend, and actually we really need mental health services there. So, we might have children's services, we might have homelessness, we'll have ourselves, we might have a probation officer or a youth offending services worker, but the people who we really need to glue it all together might be mental health and they're just not attending. So, I think multi-agency working to have an approach and agree how we are going to move forward is really important, but equally our colleagues are called to lots of multi-agency meetings, so that takes a huge amount of their time as well. And, again, that becomes really difficult to balance. So, it is really hard.

I think that one of the other things is understanding that we have a level of professionalism that enables us to have a seat at that table. Sometimes, particularly when we're talking to people in mental health services—. We've got young people or women in our accommodation where we're seeing them 24/7, we're seeing how they're interacting. They might have a half-hour consultation with them and decide that, actually, it's a behavioural issue or that they're attention seeking. No, they're actually in a mental health crisis and we need the support of mental health services so that we can keep hold of them in that accommodation and work together. We want to work in a multi-agency way, not to push the problem onto somebody else but to keep them. And I think that, almost, flipping that narrative is really important. But how we compel them to come to those meetings, I don't know.

I would agree with everything that my colleagues have said. I think, looking at the change that's needed or the innovation that can happen, there is lots of will and want within our sector, but we do need the right people around the table to explore what that is. Sometimes, because of lack of resources, things are pushed about. When we talk about joint commissioning, we're talking about health, criminal justice—those pathways that people see themselves engaging in—hospital discharges, prison releases, all those interconnecting pathways. We should be able to work together, we should be able to, somehow, have, if possible, a single point of information so that not all information, but certain information, is shared so that we're able to work really effectively with each other. There are a lot of things that would need to change for us to be able to do that. So, I think making things through commissioning, through legislation is a benefit and is a bonus.

But to get to that joint commissioning, it would be interesting to see what touch-points somebody has to have throughout a whole system, from prison release all the way through to housing, then to front-line provision, then maybe back into hospital, and they've not got the right medication, so then they've gone back to the GP—all these touch-points that somebody has have an impact on that statutory, or the organisation's, resource. If we worked more effectively with each other, then that would help.

Hospital discharge is quite an interesting one for how to understand the pressures, also with the pressures on prison release, but if hospitals cannot discharge unless they are discharging to a safe environment, that puts pressures on them, and puts pressures upon their emergency provision and getting that person released and discharged back into a community. It puts pressures on us, because we can't accept them back, because we can't care for them in the same way. Therefore, this person is then stuck. So, why don't we look innovatively at what can happen in that situation? How could we work together to support that movement to enable that person to be discharged, to lift that bed up, but to support that person in the community and support us supporting that person? So, things are possible, but that information needs to be shared so that we're not just responding to those crises. I think commissioning would be interesting to do that, but we'd all have to be willing and open at that table to contribute something in that moment.

It's very much worth looking at what Cardiff and Vale regional partnership board are doing at the moment around systems so that everybody can look at each other's system. So, it's happening at the moment with statutory—so, the local authorities and health—so that if there's a young person or an adult, everybody can look at it and so the story hasn't got to be repeated all the time. I think that it would be worth, perhaps, the committee looking at that as an example.

Okay. Thanks for that. I'm afraid that's all we have time for for this session. We will write to you, if that's okay, with some questions that we weren't able to reach, and we'd be very grateful for responses to those. You will be sent a transcript of this evidence session to check for factual accuracy in the usual way. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much for giving evidence to the committee today. Thank you, and thank you, Jim, for joining us virtually. Okay, we'll break briefly and resume at 10:10.

We've reached our second evidence session today, then, on our inquiry into housing support for vulnerable people. I'm very pleased to welcome our witnesses joining us here in person: Oliver Townsend, head of policy and campaigns for Platfform; Katie Dalton, director of Cymorth Cymru; Nicola Evans, director for Housing Justice Cymru; and Jasmine Harris, senior policy and public affairs officer with Crisis. Thank you all very much. As ever, we're very much constrained by time and we've got quite a lot of questions to get through. As there are four of you, just to say, if one of you gives evidence and you largely agree with that, don't feel the need to cover the same ground. But, if there's something that you want to add or disagree with, then, obviously, that's very important for us.

Let me begin, then, with a couple of questions on the strategic approach, before we bring in other committee members. In your view, does the Welsh Government have a clear, long-term plan for the future of housing support? A nice broad question to begin with.

I'm happy to kick off, if that's helpful.

Katie, yes.

I think, firstly, something that you'll probably hear from a range of people representing local authorities and support providers is that it's very difficult to have a long-term vision when services and commissioners are reliant on one-year funding. So, I think a very clear message that you'll get from both local authorities and providers is that multi-year funding settlements are a must.

I think that one thing that the Welsh Government, with, of course, cross-party support, has done well here is maintain the ring fence around the housing support grant. We saw in England, when that ring fence around what was called the Supporting People grant was removed, that services got absolutely decimated. I think the auditor general there found that services were cut by about 45 per cent within the first three years of that ring fence going. So, I think that that commitment to the ring fence is absolutely critical to maintaining service delivery.

I believe that some of the work that has been undertaken, particularly since the pandemic, around the transition towards rapid rehousing and around implementing a housing support programme, which the housing support grant sits within, shows a willingness to think about planning long term. However, that is very difficult when the funding does not follow that. I think that some of the work during the pandemic in phase 2, which I've referred to in my evidence, and also the requirement for rapid rehousing transition plans, has meant that needs assessments have been carried out in a way that is, potentially, stronger than in previous years. There's been a real effort to bring together capital development colleagues within both the Welsh Government and local government, together with homelessness and policy colleagues at both of those levels, to have a more joined-up approach to planning. I think it's fair to say that those often operated in silos, both at Welsh Government and local government level, and that, definitely, there's been a strong intention to bring those together. So, I would say that the intent is there and the willingness is there. We are on a journey, and we are still very early on in that journey.

I think also, this year, the discussions around the budget did not see discussions about the housing support grant take place separately to those on housing supply. I think there was a very clear recognition that both are needed together, and it's one thing increasing housing supply, but if you don't also increase support services to help maintain those tenancies, then that won't deliver the results that you want. So, I think we're on a journey, but there are a number of things, as I've outlined, that need to happen in order for us to, I guess, be confident in that long-term strategic planning, not least budget setting.

Okay, Katie, thanks very much. Oliver.

I'd just definitely echo and agree with all of that, in terms of what Katie said. I think, for us at Platfform, it's about understanding the context, as well, of the long-term plan. We do have decades of underinvestment in social housing in particular, so Katie's absolutely right to mention the link between housing supply and support—that's absolutely critical. If we don't have housing support, people cannot maintain those tenancies.

We also have a system at the moment where people are increasingly being placed, almost exclusively, in temporary accommodation, with £99 million being spent by local authorities last year. But, also, we've seen evidence that's demonstrates the harm that causes, so people are arriving at Platfform services much more traumatised, much more damaged, much more disengaged from local communities, from relationships, from the ability to seek help, and that's because the context of the housing strategy approach from Welsh Government I don't think has fully grasped the extent of underfunding within housing support and social housing together. So, a lot of the focus we see on housing at the moment is on affordable housing—that is brilliant—what we want to see at Platfform is a relentless focus on social housing. Social housing is where we have not seen the supply keeping up with demand, and that's what's leading people to be needing temporary accommodation—much higher, almost more permanent numbers—and so the people we are seeing arriving at our services are people who are not in any way feeling secure, safe or supported. When you put that alongside the historic underfunding of the housing support grant, which has been somewhat addressed with some of the recent uplifts, but, even then, it hasn't kept up with inflation overall, I think that really creates that perfect storm. So, the strategic planning from Welsh Government is brilliant, but how can that land in a context of underfunding and lack of supply of those recent years? I don't think it's possible at this stage.

Okay, Oliver, thank you very much. Jasmine.

Yes, I totally agree with everything that Katie and Oliver have said. I think, in terms of a plan, it would be remiss not to mention the Welsh Government's ending homelessness action plan, which Crisis has been very supportive of. We feel that a lot of the actions in that plan are the right actions, but they will take a long time to actually bed in and have the impact that we need to see, and essentially end homelessness. And at Crisis, we'd like to see a renewed action plan; this one ends in 2026, and we feel that there is still a long way to go. A lot of the things that Katie and Oliver have mentioned should be considered in a renewed action plan, and this could set the way for all the things that remain to be done to end homelessness in Wales.

Of course, also a key part of that action plan needs to be the change in legislation with the ending homelessness Bill coming up this Senedd term; we need to see that passed this Senedd term, and, if the White Paper is anything to go on, then that sets out quite a clear plan for what housing support should look like in terms of what statutory homelessness services should be providing. So, we're looking forward to seeing what that Bill contains, and feel that it's a move in the right direction towards the person-centred, trauma-informed and inclusive housing support that we need to see, but that that will need to be complemented with the right funding in the right way and at the right times, as Katie and Oliver have said.

Okay, Jasmine. Are you happy with that, Nicola, as well?

Just to add, if I may, as well, obviously I support what's already been said in relation to the uncertainty that's created when you have short-term funding—for organisations, but also for our colleagues that we work with as well. But I guess, just from our perspective, Housing Justice Cymru is an organisation that mobilises Christian and other faith organisations' responses to homelessness, and a lot of what we do is around enabling community responses. So, we work a lot with volunteers and members of the community, and I think, from our perspective, yes, we definitely support the need for more investment in services generally, in particular, for people whose needs are higher, but I think what we're seeing in terms of—. Oliver mentioned temporary accommodation and the numbers that are spent on temporary accommodation, and the number of people housed in temporary accommodation. I think that the Shelter and the Bevan Foundation report mentioned that about 20 per cent of people in temporary accommodation have been there within the last 12 months.

So, I think what we'd like to see is more support for people who maybe have lower level needs as well as—not instead of, but as well as—those with higher level needs, to make sure that, when we are moving people out of accommodation, whether that's temporary accommodation or support, we are making sure that they are part of the community, that they have networks, that they feel a sense of belonging within the community, because I think that is something that is quite easy to take for granted, and I always describe it as that I don't live independently; I have support from my family, my friends, my neighbours, and I'm very lucky to have those things. But not everybody has that, so I think we need to make sure that any future plan takes into account those softer needs, sometimes, and those needs to be part of a community, that human response to have connection, and the difference that can make in terms of people's well-being, but also maintaining tenancies for the future as well.

Okay, Nicola. Thank you very much. Within what you've set out initially, then, for us, are you supportive of the emphasis that Welsh Government places on rapid rehousing and housing first? Is that the right approach?

Yes, absolutely. We know, as Ol outlined, that the longer that people spend in temporary accommodation, the worse the impacts on their health, their well-being and other outcomes. It's disruptive for children in education. It can have a negative impact on people's recovery from addition and on their mental health. Rapid rehousing is about placing someone in a settled home as quickly as possible, and that principle should absolutely underpin everything that we do to end homelessness in Wales. So, rapid rehousing is 100 per cent the right plan to move forward. The reality of implementing that is extremely challenging. I guess we couldn't have a chosen a worse time to try and do that, mid pandemic, when we had record numbers of people in temporary accommodation. So, I think the context in which we're trying to implement that is hugely challenging, and that's because the Welsh Government did the right thing in terms of bringing as many people in as possible during that time. But it is hugely challenging.

As Ol has outlined, the last four decades of underfunding in social housing, not just in Wales, but across the UK, has meant that we don't have the housing supply that we need. So, a continued focus on building social housing at pace and scale is incredibly important if we are to achieve rapid rehousing, because there are far too many people stuck there in temporary accommodation.

Another key element, as well as housing support, is multi-agency support within that rapid rehousing context. I know that we're going to talk about that a little bit later, so I won't go into detail, but that's a key element of rapid rehousing.

What we see housing first as is the extreme end of rapid rehousing. So, the principle is still there—you move someone into settled accommodation as quickly as possible—but, with housing first, there's a recognition that that client group has probably gone through intrenched homelessness, has multiple complex needs and will need that intensive wraparound support for as long as is needed. One of the key principles is that it's not time limited.

I think we've seen the growth in housing first across Wales. The majority of local authorities are now running a housing first project. Some are not; some have plans to. One seems to be stepping away from it, which is incredibly concerning. I think that housing first is a well-proven, internationally evidenced model, there is no doubt about that, and it's really important that we get behind that. Because the group of people who have been in and out of homelessness services for 30 years are some of the most traumatised people in this country, and we need to do better for them, and housing first is a solution that is evidenced to work for those people. The evidence that we've collected in Wales is 91 per cent, 92 per cent tenancy sustainment rate, which is unbelievable for people who, for the past 10, 20, 30 years, have not been able to sustain a tenancy because the system has failed them. That is an unbelievable statistic. So, the evidence is here in Wales. I think what we need is more consistent funding for that, making sure that we have appropriate staff ratios to meet the complexity of need, and, importantly, that mental health services, other health services and other public services, including social services, are committed to providing that multi-agency support from the very beginning.

Can I just ask, Katie, which local authority is moving away from the housing first approach, or would you rather not—?

I'd rather not. I'm happy to—

Well, we've got local government in later.

Indeed.

Okay. That's fine.

I don't think a final decision has been made, but we are aware of one local authority that is considering moving back from that. And I think some of that is symptomatic of funding pressures, and local authorities really struggling to meet many needs and having to make very difficult decisions, but we would absolutely advocate that housing first is a must for that client group.

Yes, sure.

I don't want to add too much, because I know you want to get to some of the later questions, which are really important to all of us. The element in terms of what I was talking about earlier around the context is also really important for rapid rehousing, so it's absolutely, definitely, the right response. Absolutely, we need to be doing that. With the lack of social housing stock and supply, we are seeing a trend towards more congruent models—so, much bigger units of buildings with many more people placed in them—and that is because that is the only option available to local authorities. We totally understand why those decisions are being made, but that is a clear example of what will happen if we don't get the housing stock right, because what we believe will end up happening is we'll be ending up creating equivalent institutions, really, that, in the next 20 years, we will look back and wonder why on earth we allowed ourselves to create systems like that. That is only happening because local authorities have no other choice, because they have no other places to discharge that homelessness duty.

So, I think the big message we wanted to give from Platfform, as well as the other things later, is that we absolutely need to put house building on steroids for social housing, so that we can really make sure we're tackling big units of people, sometimes 70-plus people, all with highly complex experiences and high levels of trauma, in one place. We just don't think that's sustainable for the next 10, 20 years.

Okay, that's very clear. Thank you very much. Jasmine.

Yes, I'd just like to add that at Crisis we've got some upcoming research that spoke to local authorities who have said that, despite the challenging context, those who have got a rapid rehousing transition plan are really starting to see the positive impacts of those plans. There are no doubt challenges, as has been mentioned: social housing supply and lack of partnership buy-in. And the ending homelessness national advisory board has also been doing some work in this area and really emphasising that we need the buy-in of more than just housing services in order for rapid rehousing to really work, because it goes beyond just housing, and needs all public services' buy-in to make sure that it's really successful.

Local authorities need the resources to be able to have the staff in place to see those rapid rehousing transition plans through. We know that some roles were in place, that they were potentially temporary, and that, now these plans have been initially drafted, those roles might be coming to an end. That's not really what we want to see, because we want to see these plans being developed, improved and continuing documents that really evolve with time, and, as we develop other areas, hopefully become easier to realise, and we need that resource, that dedicated person, within a local authority to be able to make that a reality.

Okay. We'll move on, then. Peter.

Thank you. We heard a little bit about some of the overarching pressures of supply and budgeting and things like that, but what sort of pressures in the next 12 months is the sector really facing, and how do you think you're going to address some of those?

I can give a bit of the national picture if that's helpful, and I’m then happy to move on to colleagues. So, our recent survey of service providers within this sector showed that 91 per cent said that demand for their services had increased in the last year, and I think the previous year was 80-odd percent—so, continuous demand. Ninety-four per cent had said the complexity of needs had increased in the last 12 months, and that followed 94 per cent the previous year. So, when we're talking about complexity, that is really significant, and what that looks like on the ground is increased incidents involving alcohol, substance use, mental health crises, increased suicide attempts and suicide ideations. One service said that 62 per cent of residents had experienced suicide ideation and attempted suicide or self-harm, so you can imagine the quantity of that.

I think that in previous years there may have been one or two people within a project who would have had that level of severity of need or crisis incidents. At the moment it's numerous people within projects and it's very, very difficult for staff to cope with that, because the staff ratios remain the same as they always have been. I've heard of staff regularly staying beyond their hours because they're worried that someone is going to die and there hasn't been an appropriate response from statutory services, so staff have stayed beyond their hours, sometimes overnight, to prevent someone from attempting suicide because they feel that that's what they have to do. You know, a frontline worker just a couple of weeks ago said to me, ‘We're expected to walk away once we've made the referral to mental health, but, if they're not going to help, how can I do that?’ That's the situation that too many front-line workers experience.

I think, more recently, there’s been an increase in violence, abuse and weapons within projects, which is something that I think has emerged much more over the last 12 months. So, levels of risk that people are finding it very, very difficult to manage, and a change in, I think, policing policy, which means they're less likely to come out and respond to calls from supported housing, and staff are left having to deal with that.

I think you then think about the impact on other people within that project who are trying to recover and move on to independence, albeit with support, and the impact on staff well-being. So we're seeing a huge amount of stress-related absence, huge staff turnover—one organisation told us that they had, sadly, lost a staff member to suicide—and huge amounts of burnout and stress within services. And I think that these workers do unbelievably complex jobs. They know the housing legislation inside out, the welfare entitlements. They are a mental health community support worker, they're a substance misuse worker, and that's all in addition to being a housing support worker, yet they're paid absolute peanuts, and that's not because of the will of the organisations employing them, it's because of the funding system. And they are carrying intense levels of trauma and stress every hour of every day, supporting people with all sorts of trauma in their lives, and are not getting the pay and the support that they need. And as I really want to emphasise, that's not because the organisations don't want to provide that, it's because of the lack of funding there. And I think then that the turnover, the cost-of-living crisis, we surveyed front-line workers a year or so ago and 86 per cent were not putting the heating on in order to save money, 56 per cent were struggling to pay their bills, 18 per cent were struggling to pay rent and 12 per cent were feeling at greater risk of homelessness, and they're the very staff who are employed to prevent homelessness in others. And then we know the impact that staff turnover has on clients, who, as you'll hear throughout today, have been traumatised and let down by so many systems over so many years, find it really difficult to build trust, and often with these third sector organisations, for the first time, have someone that they feel that they can rely on. And then staff turnover, staff absence breaks that bond and people can be back at the start.

Thank you, Katie. That chimes with what we heard in the first session as well, and it's a really frightening situation. How are you going to manage that? It's not sustainable, so how can you manage it for the next 12 months?

Services will be actively considering restructuring, making staff redundant and, worst case scenario, handing back contracts. One of the things that will help the housing support grant-funded sector is that we secured a £21 million increase in the Welsh Government's budget. That was extremely hard fought for and was supposed to be about increasing front-line worker pay and helping to increase staff ratios to meet this complexity of need. Instead, a whole bunch of that is going to go to national insurance contributions. That is incredibly frustrating for us who campaigned so hard for the additional money for all the reasons I've just outlined, not because I wanted the money to go down the M4 to the Westminster Government. So, I'm furious about that, services are furious about that and, to be honest, I don't blame the Welsh Government if they're furious about it, because they fought hard to get that additional £21 million to help support services and front-line worker pay. They didn't secure it to pay national insurance. So, I think there are a lot of furious people as a result.

Oliver.

I was just going to say, 'Heartbroken, overwhelmed, powerless, but defiantly hopeful', I think, is where our support workers are in Platfform. When I see what our support workers have to deal with every single day, it is absolutely overwhelming. I think it's hard sometimes talking to politicians, but they actually sit there every single day and have incredibly difficult conversations, see people at their absolutely lowest ebb, and then are expected to go home to their families and not put the heating on because they can't afford to eat or to live. It's absolutely disgusting, and I think the fact that we have allowed that system to be perpetuated, despite hugely positive cross-party support—this has had cross-party support over the last 20, 30 years within the Senedd—the fact that we are now seeing a system where the people we pay to look after people in their most vulnerable moments cannot afford to eat or heat is absolutely disgraceful and I think it's an indictment.

If you want to see the impact of 15 years of austerity, go to a supported housing accommodation unit and talk to every single person there, and you'll understand that that is what happens when the public safety net of all of those public services is gradually overwhelmed. But not just that, it's about the lack of community support, it's the lack of all of these ways for people to connect. I will stop talking because I want us to talk more about the connection between services and how housing support workers can do that.

One of the critical things, though, for me is that I think there is a huge lack of understanding of the role of a support worker at a political and policy level. We see this whenever new schemes are announced about social care workforce pay or pay and conditions from Welsh Government; Cymorth always have to then lobby for, 'And what about support workers?' Some things were announced for the care workforce, 'And what about support workers?' So, for the people that we employ within Platfform, there is a constant sense that they are playing second fiddle to other sectors, and that's not to denigrate what the other sectors are doing, absolutely not, but it constantly feels like we are fighting a losing battle just for recognition for the work that we do.

And just to make it really clear, if the support sector didn't exist tomorrow, every single person in those supported accommodation units, or people who are receiving floating support, would be absolutely bang, smack within statutory public services. So, what I would really want from today, as well as work on multi-agency progress and bringing those things together, is a real affirmation, I think, from Welsh Government, that they understand what support workers do and that they will, going forward, see support workers in exactly the same lens as they see the social care workforce. So, any changes around minimum wage changes or rewards or bonuses include support workers, going forward, because I think that continually gets ignored and forgotten.

A powerful message. Thank you. We've touched a little bit on local authorities already, and their commissioning and move towards rehousing and housing first, but looking at local authorities more generally, are they commissioning in the right way the right services?

I think they're commissioning what they can within the budgets that they receive. I think it's very difficult for local authorities to commission anything different or new, because they are struggling to have the finances to keep the services they already have going. So, we know that demand outstrips supply of services. So, in order to commission something new, they would need to decommission existing services, which are already supporting people in a really valuable way. So, I think that's the real practical challenge of this. It's very easy to have this discussion in theory, the practice of that is very difficult.

I think, as I've said before, we're very pleased to see the growth in Housing First projects across most local authorities in Wales, so I think that has been helped, where there's been additional funding made available through Welsh Government, to start that off, but, increasingly, local authorities using their housing support grant, and other funds, to help fund that. But that's really difficult when there isn't additional funding. So, if Welsh Government want to see different models funded, then making additional funding available, like they did through the Housing First trailblazer fund, is important.

I also think that a critical point in this—and this comes on to the points that we'll make, probably later on, about meeting increased complexity—is that funding needs to come from other public services. So, I think a lot of the people who end up in housing support grant-funded services have been failed by other public services. I think a really common thing that we hear is that mental health needs have not been met, and people have spiralled into a crisis that then means that they end up at homelessness services. I hear far too often that social care has either deemed someone to be not meeting the threshold, so not severe enough to qualify for social care help, or is too complex, and social care don't have the type of services that would be able to meet that need. So, it's both ends of the spectrum. And I want to make it really clear that this is not an attack on the brilliant people who work in those services; this is about calling out a system that's not working.

But I think, going forward, I would really like to see genuine co-commissioning and co-funding of multidisciplinary services that meet particularly for those people who have the most complex and co-occurring needs. Because there is, very clearly to me, unmet social care needs within that, and unmet mental health needs, and I think people are finding it really difficult to access the traditional system. I think I'd like to see health and social care services step forward into this space and co-fund these services. Otherwise, we're just continuing to rely on the housing support grant to pick up all the pieces of the failures of other parts of the system, and that's also not okay, but genuine collaboration would help to meet those needs, particularly when we think about people who are stuck in the homelessness system for a long time.

Jasmine. Yes.

I'd just add, with regard to commissioned services, Crisis isn't a commissioned service. We don't receive housing support grant funding, yet we are seeing that those that are commissioned services have such a high demand that they are now referring in to Crisis. So, that's how high the demand is, that they don't feel that they can provide the holistic support that is needed for these people with multiple needs, and they are therefore referring in to Crisis, another partner, and it really just shows the pressure that these commissioned services are under.

Okay. Thanks, Jasmine. Lee Waters.

So, I just want to ask about monitoring and evaluation. Cymorth mentioned in their evidence that the collection of data is burdensome, and the outcome data is not published, so there's no clear demonstrable benefit for those who are doing all the hard yards of collecting it, and I think Crisis make the point that it's still early days. But there does seem to be a pretty consistent picture in the evidence that we've had that there are two sets of drivers of data going on: there's the commissioning data for the local authorities, and then there's the national outcome data, and there doesn't seem to be a great deal of join up, and certainly not transparency between the two. So, what do you think we should be asking and recommending about making data more meaningful as a way of driving service improvement, rather than simply as a box-ticking exercise?

So, I think it's frustrating that the housing support data hasn't been published yet, but it is in early days, and I understand that the plan is to publish that nationally. It's obviously collected at a local level, so local authorities are and should be using that already to understand the impact that services are having, and also to understand where the gaps are. The new outcomes framework is split into two sections. One is focused very much on the housing outcomes, which is effectively the primary purpose of this grant. The secondary outcomes are focused on some of the more holistic outcomes, on mental health, on meaningful engagement, that sort of thing. What that data should give local authorities is an understanding of what services are able to deliver on certain elements and what services are able to deliver on other outcomes, and what they should have is a portfolio of services that meet those different needs.

Different client groups and different people will have different ambitions and needs, so it's important that not all services look the same and deliver exactly the same outcomes. Different services are needed for different outcomes. So, I think the framework that's been put in place, it was co-produced with front-line workers, so they had a huge influence, actually, on some of the outcomes that were collected, and therefore it should be more relevant and meaningful to their day-to-day work, and it was done collaboratively also with local authorities and providers. So, my view is that the new outcomes framework is better than the old one, but it does need to be published and it does need to be utilised both locally and nationally to understand that picture and guide decisions about where there might be service gaps and improvement needed.

I think the data that is collected separately to that by local government is where it's most variable, and I think that that can become very burdensome to providers. Often, we hear from front-line workers that they're in it because they want to be there delivering support, and too much of their time is spent doing the admin side of it. Now, we understand that in order to have a funded housing support grant there needs to be evidence of impact; that's an important part of accountability and transparency. However, I think that some of the admin that's collected, that's required of services, is too much, and I would pose the question of, 'Is it necessary, or are you micromanaging at that local level?'

So, my recommendations would be: publish the national data as soon as possible; for Welsh Government to make sure that local authorities are utilising that to understand gaps, successes, shortfalls, and the need to change service configuration in the future; and, thirdly, a recommendation that local government do not collect too much data that it becomes overly burdensome where that is not necessary.

Very clear answer. Thank you.

Okay, Lee. Oliver.

I'll add to that really quickly. I'm not speaking today on this level, but I'm also chair of the Wallich, who you heard from earlier. In terms of the outcomes and bureaucracy that charities have to meet, you have your charity governance compliance with the Charity Commission; you have regular outcomes measures that need to be collected; you have your SP8 forms to report all of your spending; you have your RSL management and regulation reports; you have the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 guidance that you need to follow; you have a personal housing plan that support workers have to follow according to the Housing (Wales) Act; you have care and treatment plans according to the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010, for each individual person that has to be gathered; you have to have CCIA reports—complaints, compliments, incidents and accidents—that go to board regularly; you have board oversight; you have safeguarding alerts to social services and mental health; you have individual practice notes about the way that you support people, any particular concerns that that individual is facing; and then you have monitoring from local authorities regularly, often on an annual basis, to see how it's going; you then have regular evaluation of new service models; and then you have the fact that you have to do all of that on the 10 per cent management charge that is allowed within the Housing (Wales) Act guidance. So, I think the third sector is absolutely very well regulated and very well monitored, and one of the best things that I think we could see is a shift on the level of regulation we have to face.

Which one of those would you lessen?

I would like to see commissioners, with support from the Welsh Government, trusting the third sector to manage its own finances, particularly, as we've talked about in our submission, the use of eligibility criteria. A lot of time—in some local authorities, not all—is spent on 'What activity does a support worker do that is eligible for housing support grant funding?' You end up in ridiculous conversations where, if someone puts a meal out for someone on the side for someone who's struggling, that's care. So, you can't be paid for that time. If someone sits down and has a cup of tea, well that’s social support, so you can't be paid for that. It's absolutely ludicrous. And the amount of time and bureaucracy that uses is baffling. So, actually, to have a proper root-and-branch look at how providers are trusted, I think, would be a really helpful way forward. There is a tendency to assume, sometimes, that the third sector is an unregulated space. It's just not true. The amount of paperwork and bureaucracy, I think, is baffling. And I think if you had a look, for a day, at what we have to submit to various different bodies, I think you would be very surprised.

Thank you.

Thanks very much. That's very useful evidence for us. Siân.

Turning to cross-sector working or the deficiencies in the efforts to work across sectors, we know that there are major problems in that area. How are we going to move away from those issues and create a system that does work across sectors?

I'll go first again, if that's okay. Diolch, Siân. Firstly, I'll mention the homelessness Bill that is due to be published—the seasons change, obviously, in civil service language—hopefully before the summer, which proposes to put duties on a range of public services to identify if someone is at risk of homelessness, act and refer. I think it's critically important that those duties make it into the final legislation.

There's also a duty that's been proposed for a case co-ordination approach to people who are in contact with multiple public services. I think what we see is that public services are not communicating with each other, not sharing information with each other, particularly risk information, and particularly with the third sector. For some reason there is just an unwillingness in some places to share risk information as honestly as we would like with third sector colleagues because they're not part of the public sector. So, I think the case co-ordination approach, for those who have got the most complex and co-occurring issues, is really important. So, I think that one point is that we want to see the homelessness Bill reflect the White Paper, and any deviation from that would be a mistake. We'll be keeping a very close eye on that.

I think there's something about the respect and support of the housing support workforce. I've described the sorts of expertise and roles that support workers carry out every single day, yet they hear, time and time again, 'You are just a support worker.' The amount of times I've heard that from front-line workers in this sector, 'You're just a support worker'. They are not listened to. They are the people who spend the most time with people in the system. They know them very well, they know their triggers, they know their traumas. They are almost an early-alert system to statutory services when they feel that a crisis is about to start, and too often they're not taken seriously. So I think respect for this workforce is really important.

I've mentioned information sharing, and particularly risk information—that is absolutely critical. The services within this sector are fully prepared to meet the needs of people who are high risk and have co-occurring complex needs, but if they are not given that honest information about that, they cannot meet those needs safely, for both that person, the other clients, and the staff members around them.

I think particularly on mental health services—as I said before, this is no criticism on individuals, we know they are overstretched; this is criticism of a system that is unable to meet needs—there are too many occasions where our members, our providers, try to get mental health services to respond, and they do not. I've outlined social care, that sort of conundrum of either people don’t meet the threshold or they’re too complex, and we don’t have any services that would be able to meet that level of complexity. And I’ve also mentioned the police and their 'Right Care, Right Person' policy, which has seen fewer police responding to some of the incidents within these services.

I think the points that Katie has made are really important, and that the ending homelessness Bill has that legal duty on all public sectors to prevent, identify and act when it comes to homelessness. I think key to that is the training and education of public services staff, the awareness of what each different public service does, but also the awareness of health inclusion, the links between each different public sector—so, the effect that health has on homelessness, the effect that homelessness has on health, and what can be done to actually make a difference in that area.

Katie’s mentioned co-commissioning. I think co-location of different services is really important as well. When someone has to go from one side of town to the other side of town to see a different service that they really need to see, they’re already experiencing the stress of not having a stable place to live, and it can be really difficult for them to have an effective interaction with that service.

We work, at Crisis, with prison leavers, and that can be a real challenge when someone lives prison. On the day they leave prison, they need to see probation, they need to see housing options, they need to pick up a prescription. Those can all be in completely different parts of town. If they’re released on a Friday—which they shouldn’t be, but that is still happening—it becomes even more difficult, because services might close early, or at least close at 5 p.m. and if they haven’t made it to all those services by the time the weekend comes, then they haven’t got any option until the following Monday. So, if you could have all those services within one hub, to just walk through one door and have all the different services that you need to meet the needs that you have, the support needs that you have—housing needs, health needs, mental health needs, physical health needs—having that all in one place would be invaluable for people who have those multiple needs.

In terms of the co-funding, if we were moving towards that model, would that be the main driver of change?

I think it would be one of the main drivers. I think that, as I mentioned before, in preparation for the rapid rehousing transition plans, there’s been an assessment of needs done of the population, which probably wasn’t done as comprehensively in the past. And I think that, out of that, it’s informed the planning of housing-related support and homelessness services, and also housing supply. I think the impression that I get is that that’s very much sat on the shoulders of housing colleagues in local government, and that, actually, the responsibility needs to be taken at a much higher corporate level, both within local government and the other responsibilities such as social services, but also, then, connecting with health boards, in order to make that happen. I think there’s some useful data being collected, but it’s very much still kept within the housing bit of local government and not really connecting to some of those areas.

I think it's about things like regional partnership boards and public services boards having a much greater awareness of these things, and then being able to provide that funding. We know that’s really challenging because all public services are really stretched at the moment. But if you consider the cost to the public sector of some of the people that we're talking about who are highly traumatised, who have very poor health and social care outcomes, the cost of the public services is going to be huge, now and in the future, so being able to come together and to provide those options is really important.

I think funding services in terms of staffing ratios is also something that is important when we're seeing increased complexity of need. We're running the same service models that we were 10 years ago, 15 years ago. As Ol outlined earlier, the funding has not kept pace with inflation, so even if needs had stayed the same, we wouldn't have enough funding in the system to meet those needs appropriately, but we know that that demand and complexity has increased. I think, too often, we hear about staffing teams that are not robust enough to be able to meet some of the incidents that I outlined earlier, so I think that staffing ratios is also really important within this context. I do think that greater co-commissioning between different public services is really important.

Also, when we think about the legislation, it's about other public services stepping in earlier, because there are some people within the homelessness system who just shouldn't be there. They should have had that homelessness prevented much earlier, and if there are duties on other public services to understand if someone is at risk of homelessness and to intervene earlier and prevent that—. We would like to not see most of those people in the homelessness system. It's almost a kind of place of last resort when everything else has failed people, so much further upstream approaches and prevention, I think, would also be really critical as well.

If I could just come in really quickly, I think it's what funding where and for what, which may seem like really simple questions. The housing support grant is absolutely critical in terms of creating that prevention for housing and homelessness needs. However, it has meant that practice is largely and very highly reliant on personal relationships. Platfform run services where we often go into hospital wards for mental health in-patient discharge, where we're able to build really positive connections with people, to help make sure that people who've had a mental health crisis of some form are not then discharged into homelessness. In some health boards, that works incredibly well. In some health boards, in some wards it works really well. In others, it doesn't. There is no high-level policy change that you can adopt to impact on relationships, other than, we think, ensuring that some preventative funding is also given to other sectors as well as housing.

There's a reason, I think, that we've managed to maintain preventative working, albeit with all of those struggles and challenges that we've seen within the housing sector, and that's because of the housing support grant. The same mechanism does not exist for other parts of the public sector, which means that the prevention work we're seeing within housing cannot be replicated in social care or health, because a similar funding pot doesn't exist. What tends to happen is we have internal, within the NHS, funding pots for prevention, which are often bureaucratic and difficult to actually assess whether they go into the right places. They often go into a very health, medical lens, whereas actually, a lot of the time, what people really need is a conversation, support to navigate some of the very real social challenges around, 'Oh, God, how do I pay my rent? How do I get access to financial support?' Those are often the drivers behind mental health crises, as just one example.

So, I think the answer is, yes, continued support for the housing support grant, but also what I would love to see is for us to learn what's gone well about the housing support grant and apply that to other policy areas in Wales, because we spend so long defending the housing support grant around consistent below-inflation increases, and yet the rest of the sector has not learnt from what we've done. So, I think that would be my final powerful call, I suppose, on that: can we please learn from it before we lose it elsewhere?

Do you think there is a threat to the preventative work that's happening through the housing support grant because the homelessness prevention pot of money is now part of the housing support grant?

I'll probably let Katie come in in a second, but for me, I think there is a very almost academic argument about what is the nature of prevention and exactly when does prevention happen. People who arrive and receive housing support grant services are being prevented from getting worse or experiencing homelessness. So, the housing support grant is a solely preventative grant. It allows people to not get worse or to not remain permanently homeless, or not to die at the average age of, I believe, 43 or 44, which is the average age of someone who sleeps rough. It is a prevention fund. Whether or not the homelessness prevention part of it is more preventative or early intervention, I think I would defer to Katie on that.

So, it is really important to say that the housing support grant is a preventative grant, and that works across the public health definitions of prevention. So, you've got some of that primary prevention work, where someone might be at risk of losing a tenancy and the HSG floating support service prevents that from happening, and then the other layers of prevention, where it's about preventing further harm from happening. And that might be about moving someone off the streets into supported accommodation and helping them to manage harmful things in their lives and helping them to move forward and have more positive outcomes in their lives. So, I think it's really important that the committee understands that the HSG is preventative in its nature; it just operates at the different public health levels of prevention.

With the homelessness prevention grant—and I think that this will be referred to by a few people—I think it's important to understand the context of that. So, that operated historically separately, where local projects could put in bids to run certain innovative homelessness prevention services that were funded by the Welsh Government. The local authority had to tick that they approved of them and then it was run. I think it's fair to say that the Welsh Government is not the best grant manager for a local project. The local authority understands the local needs and how that should fit within the overall homelessness and housing support provision within this area. So, I think a decision was taken a few years ago that those projects that were previously local projects, funded by national Government, are actually better placed in the housing support grant so that local authorities have control and understand the different needs within that area. So, that was the rationale behind moving those into the HSG, and I agree with that rationale.

I think that the consequences of doing that are challenging for some areas, because the very nature of a local area or a local project being able to bid for national funding is that it wasn't evenly spread across Wales. It was maybe those organisations that were more proactive and had some innovative ideas. So, then, when you put them into the HSG and it's applied through the funding formula to the different local authorities, you have the risk that some of those areas that were very proactive and bid to the homelessness prevention grant do not get all of that money back. So, that's a real challenge, and that has to be managed really sensitively between the Welsh Government and local government to make sure that we don't lose services. But I would rather the Welsh Government focus on delivering and debating strategy, policy and legislation nationally about how we end homelessness in Wales, not micromanaging a grant for a local project. In my view, a local authority is better placed to do that, and it's better that it's part of a strategic overview of homelessness and housing support provision within that local area. The caveat is the challenges to individual projects as you're making that transition.

Okay, Siân. Lee Waters.

Forgive me, Chair, I asked the questions earlier on data.

Are you happy on the future of housing support, Lee?

I think I'm covering that, Chair.

Are you?

Yes.

I'm sorry.

That's all right. I'm going to try to wrap, because we haven't got much time, two questions into one, really. We've picked out from the evidence so far what I imagine you think, perhaps, a future support service might look like, but you've got another opportunity to share what you think future housing support might look like. Also, then, perhaps linked to that, we know that the Welsh Government's favoured default position would be to move to housing first. How do you think they're doing with that, and are there some barriers that need to be levelled to make progress?

So, I think, looking to the future, it is absolutely critical that this grant remains ring fenced. As I mentioned before, in England, they removed that ring fence in, I think, 2009, and the auditor's office found that, nationally, services were cut by 45 per cent as soon as that happened. They look to us in Wales with envy, and I think one of the things we can all be really proud of is the cross-party support for that ring fence. That's really important that there is that consensus here in Wales about the importance of that multi-year funding, which I'm sure you've heard this morning and will continue to hear throughout the day. Workforce, for me, is critical. We've got a task and finish group sitting under the ending homelessness national advisory board at the moment that is looking at workforce. I had a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government and the Minister for social partnership yesterday to discuss this issue in more detail.

We've talked a lot about workforce, the things they encounter and the need for them to be recognised better. It is critical if we are going to have a sustainable housing support workforce that helps to meet the ambition of ending homelessness that they are paid far more than they are already, that reflective practice is built into commissioning and not seen as a 'nice to have', because that not just helps people process some of the very challenging things that they've encountered and think about what could be done differently or better, but it also helps build resilience within those staff members to keep going, and not go off sick and not decide to leave the sector.

We need supervision and support. We've outlined the trauma that people encounter every day. That's not a given at the moment, because some services are commissioned in a way that you get paid for the hours of delivery, and you might get 10 per cent for your management costs and nothing else. And, on training, if we talk about complexity of issues that people are dealing with, they need the training to help them cope with those things. So, it's a holistic approach to workforce. We will be bringing recommendations to Ministers in the coming months and we need this workforce to be prioritised, because I have spent the past eight years fighting for this workforce. During the pandemic, when health and social care workers got afforded priority in vaccine, PPE, I was the one banging the drum round the table having to fight for this workforce to be included, and they were out there every day of the week risking COVID. So, workforce, for me, is really, really important.

On housing first, we are making good progress. The majority of local authorities have got that. We need to maintain fidelity to the model. What we cannot have is any local authority saying, 'We've got housing first-ish'. It's either housing first, or it's not. It's not for everyone; it's for a very specific client group. That's important to say. But it has to be in line with the principles in order to be successful. So, we need funding to enable local authorities to develop that, and that should be through the housing support grant. We need fidelity to be maintained to the model in order for it to be successful. We need it in every local authority everywhere in Wales. We need it to be linked to the needs assessments that they're doing as part of their rapid rehousing transition plans, and we need other public services to be bought in in order for it to be successful. But it's on a positive journey and we've got an accreditation process in Wales that is world leading; no other country in the world has it. My Housing First policy manager is invited to speak at conferences in Canada, in Australia, and, of course, Europe—unfortunately for him, online—[Laughter.]—to talk about this accreditation process that focuses on fidelity. It is world leading and Wales should be really proud of it. So, we're on a journey with Housing First, but more to do.

Thank you.

I was just going to come in really—. Oh, sorry.

Do you mind if I—

Yes.

It's just to make two points quickly, if that's okay, and echo what's already been said. I think, from our perspective, we'd like to see more of the community response enabling how we approach homelessness, and I think, from the services that we run, we run a citadel model that partners people who are either experiencing homelessness or are in danger of becoming homeless with volunteers in that community, and I think that service achieves brilliant outcomes. We have a 98 per cent tenancy sustainment rate, a 96 per cent engagement rate, and so really great outcomes from that project.

But I think, coming into this role fairly new, what really struck me were the comments we received from our volunteers. We had somebody say recently that volunteering has given him a meaning to his life. So, in terms of the extra bang for your buck you get when you enable a community response, I think that's something I would like to see prioritised more and rolled out across Wales.

And I think, just to add another point on the nation of sanctuary, our ambition in Wales is to become a nation of sanctuary, and, an organisation like mine, we span housing, homelessness, but also the refugee sector as well. It's a great ambition to have, to be a nation of sanctuary in Wales, but we need to do more to ensure that if we're talking about ending homelessness, we need to end homelessness for everybody, and that includes sanctuary seekers, so refugees and asylum seekers as well.

Yes. Thank you.

Mine was just a very quick one, which is fully agreeing with both Nicola and Katie. I think, increasingly, Platfform is looking more at that community-based work as well, so, actually, trying to get in very much earlier on. We really do want to see a community strategy for Wales that looks at devolving power back to local communities so that they can decide.

But, critically, the bit I'd like to finish on is if you employ a psychologist or a psychiatrist, they're expected to have regular reflective or clinical supervision, because it is expected that they will be experiencing some really traumatic, vicarious trauma from the conversations that they have, and yet the same requirement is not expected of housing support workers, even though, often, they spend, sometimes, upwards of 12 hours in a project where they may be facing people who have then taken their own life or self-harmed or there have been serious violent or dangerous incidents. That's not saying that we need the same regulation as psychiatrists or psychologists, but that understanding that there is no difference between the trauma they both experience.

And part of that comes down to commissioning, ultimately—funding, yes, but how services are commissioned. If you only commission a service based on cost-for-service hours and 10 per cent management, you aren't going to get organisations able to provide reflective practice, clinical supervision and appropriate training.

And, Jasmine, your last chance.

So, without wishing to labour the point, I think we've talked about the homelessness prevention grant and we've talked about the housing support grant, but the bottom line is that both need to be funded if we are to move away from this firefighting state across public services and across homelessness services that we're in. We need to see that funding, we need to see the ending homelessness Bill brought in, and in a fully funded way, in order for us to move to meaningful prevention upstream and stop people from experiencing the trauma that is homelessness.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, Peter. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you all very much for coming to give evidence to the committee today. It's been very, very useful. Thank you, Oliver, Katie, Nicola and Jasmine. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy in the usual way. Diolch yn fawr iawn. We're going to break briefly until 11:20.

For our third evidence session on housing support for vulnerable people today, I'm very pleased to welcome, joining us virtually, Clare Budden, group chief executive of ClwydAlyn, and joining us here in our committee room, Rhea Stevens, director of policy and external affairs for Community Housing Cymru, and Sarah Schofield, director of customers and communities for Adra. Thank you, all three of you, very much for joining committee today. Perhaps I might begin with some fairly general questions on the strategic approach of the Welsh Government. Does the Welsh Government, in your view, have a clear long-term plan for the future of housing support? Who would like to begin?

Clare, would you like to go first, and then we can follow?

Thank you. Can everyone hear me?

Yes, we can hear you fine, thanks, Clare. Yes.

Great. Diolch. Bore da, bawb. It's a great pleasure to be with you this morning. For me, I guess the simple answer to this question is that this is inextricably linked to the Welsh Government's ambition around ending homelessness. Because without a really clear long-term plan around housing support, it will be really difficult to deliver the ambitions in that legislation.

I think that there have been some moves over the last few years to develop better data sets in terms of the levels of need for housing support. However, I do feel that there's more work to do there in terms of looking more upstream. Local authorities are now required to evidence the levels of support for people who are coming through the doors, but we need much better data around those people that we can work with sooner, which will prevent them coming through the doors in the first place—so, the numbers of people living in homes within the community whose homelessness could be prevented if more support was available.

So, I think there's something about better evidence around long-term needs, and then, absolutely, a commitment from Government for longer term funding within this programme, to make sure that we can enable people to keep roofs over their heads. So, we want to end homelessness, or make homelessness, when it does happen, singular, not repeated, and that people move to settled accommodation quickly—and they will need support, some people, for a short time, a medium time and a long time—but also that we are much better at preventing people from becoming homeless in the first place. I think the Government's making a commitment, but I think there's more work to do on this space.

Okay, Clare. Thanks very much.

I'd echo a lot of what Clare said there. I think the Government has a really clear plan for how it hopes to end homelessness in Wales, and I think it has also been extremely clear that the housing support grant and the housing support services play a fundamental role in that. I think the term I'd pick up on in your question there, John, is 'long term', because, actually, having worked for CHC now for nearly six years, I have been involved in six years of campaigning for the housing support grant each and every year. It has had a corrosive effect on the ability of the sector to look forward, because it feels like you are constantly fighting. Every single year, you're entering really, really difficult conversations, and, quite frankly, if there was a long-term plan, I would argue that it shouldn't be that way, and it doesn't have to be this way. So, I think a fundamental principle of a long-term plan is making sure that there is a long-term funding commitment to making sure that the services are supported to continue, but, crucially, also, to develop and to grow in response to the evolving need that we're seeing in our communities as well. I think that Welsh Government have been really clear that they place huge value on the work done by the housing support workforce. That isn't in question; I think we do have recognition of the value within Government. But there's a lot more that we need to do to create the conditions in which we've got a sector that can thrive.

Okay. Thank you very much. Did you want to add anything, Sarah, or are you content with those?

Yes, I'm happy to add to that. I'd say, probably, it's the visibility of that plan and how it's understood at various levels of organisations. It might be very clear and visible to some people in the organisation, or to some organisations, but it's probably not clear, particularly, to staff who work in the organisations what is that longer term plan and what's the direction of travel of the services. I think that's part of the issue: if you're very engaged with the topic, you probably would see how it all fits together, but some people that work in the system would find that very difficult to see and to understand.

Okay. Thank you. In terms of Welsh Government's rapid rehousing and housing first emphasis and plans, are they the right approaches, in your view?

I think there's widespread support for the principle of rapid rehousing, within which housing first is a programme or an element of that. So, I think that, amongst our membership but more broadly, I see huge support for the intention and the ambition of those plans. I think where we are experiencing challenges is in the deliverability of those, and there is some variation.

I think this is a fundamental point. At the moment we're seeing housing need of all types at unprecedented levels in communities across Wales. It looks different in different communities and the pressures can be quite distinct, but that's particularly explicit and hard felt in temporary accommodation. And so we're at a point where we are trying to turn the tanker towards rapid rehousing, towards prevention, towards, as Clare says, making sure that, if homelessness were to occur, that it is brief and it is not repeated. However, whilst trying to turn our attention upstream and towards prevention, we're facing some of the most difficult challenges in terms of the crisis in temporary accommodation, and so I don't think it is necessarily that there is anything fundamental to review or so forth with the ambition of rapid rehousing. The challenge we're facing on every front here is: how do you respond effectively to the immediate crisis being felt by people and too many families with children across Wales, while at the same time shaping the system of the future so that we're doing more to prevent homelessness in the first place?

Thank you very much. Anything to add, Sarah or Clare? Or are you content with that?

Clare, do you want to go first?

Thank you. Only a couple of very, very brief comments. I agree with everything Rhea's just said. I think it's absolutely the right way forward, but it needs more homes built and more homes provided for people to enable it to happen, and it needs a long-term funding stream that is adequate and is committed to the longer term to enable those people who move into housing first or benefit from rapid rehousing to thrive and succeed. I think we perhaps should also remember, though, that I don't think this means that we will in the future not need any of the kind of supported accommodation we have at the moment, the kind of shared and temporary hostel-type accommodation. I think that works well for some people at a certain stage, so I think there will be a need still for some of that, but the quality of that needs to improve in many parts of Wales. But we've just got to be providing more homes and putting our funding into the support programme to enable people to succeed.

Okay, Clare. Sarah.

The only thing I'd add to what's already been said is about the culture of working between the organisations. I think the funding is an important element; the creation of the new-build homes is an important issue, which the registered social landlords are delivering at pace. But there's something about the culture and collaboration I think that needs to be added in there as well, getting people into the same space, the time to dedicate to looking at how we can work together better. I think there are lots of good examples in north Wales, but particularly 137 High Street in Bangor, where it's a collaboration between Cyngor Gwynedd, Adra and North Wales Housing, where each of the parties have played to their strengths to deliver something that's a much needed regeneration project on the high street, but also, instead of competing, instead of the organisations all wanting to do the same thing, we've achieved something through collaboration and I think there's much more of that needed, because there are lots of smaller and larger organisations that can come together and play to each other's strengths.

How did that come about, Sarah? Was there a main mover in that, or did it organically develop, or—?

It came about after a discussion with the homeless team manager at the time. Adra reached out to them to say, ‘Is there anything more that we can do?’ and they said that there was this need in Bangor to create that. And then just various conversations between the organisations, I think. So, it's just having that time to talk to each other to understand each other's pressures and to come up with solutions collaboratively.

And then also we recognised that, actually, the specialists for homeless services in Bangor are North Wales Housing. So Adra built the building, but North Wales Housing will provide the service. And I think that's a really good collaboration that achieved the outcome that, probably, individually those three organisations couldn't achieve. And I know that ClwydAlyn and all the other RSLs have got similar examples across north Wales.

Right, okay. Thank you very much. And Peter.

Thank you. I'd like to talk about service pressures. We've got an idea of the wider, more general pressures of money and turning the ship around, and how you do the preventative agenda while you're dealing with an increasing front door, but what are your immediate problems? Over this next 12 months, what's the sector really up against and what can you do try to deal with that?

I think Clare wants to come in.

Clare.

Okay, thank you.

You can volunteer, Clare.

I could have quite a long list here. [Laughter.] I'll try and be succinct and brief. I'm sure you've heard so far already today that increasing complexity is a huge pressure across the system. So, we now see more people with much more complex needs than we used to do through our homeless services, and that means sometimes that staffing ratios and staffing levels are a challenge in terms of providing the right support to keep people safe and well in all of our services. And it can also mean that it can be quite difficult sometimes to place people in the right service to make sure that we can meet their needs in full.

Staff turnover is a challenge. In my own association, we have 150 staff that work in our supported living services but altogether we employ about 800 people. And what I see in the homeless services—we also run care homes, so it's in homelessness and care—we have higher levels of staff turnover than we do in the rest of the organisation. The reason I cite that as a challenge is because that turnover is not an indicator of the culture of our organisation, because the people employed in those services have the same terms and conditions, work in the same environment for the whole business as other people do. However, what that is a reflection of is the really challenging work that those people are required to undertake, which is not valued in terms of how well it's paid comparatively to other similar roles in the association. The work can lead to burnout, the work can lead to pressures. So, one of my big challenges over the next 12 months is how I am able to make sure that I can attract, recruit and retain the best people, how I'm able to provide those people with the right support and reflective practice for when they face really, really difficult challenges in the workplace, and suicide attempts are not uncommon, people collapsing through substance overdoses are not uncommon, and people need the time to help manage those situations when they occur. So, those are some things at the forefront of my mind.

Some of the other pressures I think are that we have many contracts where, actually, we're out of contract, so the contract term has ended but the local authorities have not retendered. The pressure that creates for us is that we are running those contracts on, perhaps, tendered sums that we tendered on many, many years ago—sometimes seven, eight, nine years ago—but local authorities sometimes are hesitant to retender because they know that the service price will go up and they are struggling to manage their budgets in whole around that. But that can mean that we're continuing to run services in the not most effective way possible, and in organisations like ClwydAlyn, because it's not the whole of our business—we're not a third sector provider who only runs homeless services—we are able to use resources from other parts of our business to plug this. So, I do see some real pressures on some of the very small providers in terms of their long-term sustainability. So, although the additional funding for the housing support grant both for last year and this year is hugely appreciated and welcomed, it's really only skimming the surface in terms of the challenges that we're facing within the sector.

I think I echo and agree with everything Clare says there. Welsh Government have been clear, through successive Ministers and various policies and announcements and so forth, that they want to see a resilient and valued workforce that is recognised for the fantastic work that they do. You ask about the next 12 months, Peter: in December, when we saw the draft budget announcement and, as Clare said, the very welcome £21 million, it felt as though we would be able to take a substantial step forward towards realising that, to both improve wage levels, a move towards the real living wage within the sector, to improve the training and support offers available for staff. The announcement by the UK Government of the national insurance increase I think has meant that, collectively, we've all had to reassess what we believe we're going to be able to achieve in the next 12 months. And actually, I think the priority is to look after the staff teams that we've got, and ensure that they are able to continue to do the work that they need to do. I don't see, in the next 12 months, a lot of space for expansion and the evolution that we know is required. I think that's really important. I think Welsh Government are grappling with that as well, in that they have deliberately made an investment in the workforce that they recognise are doing such important work, but a huge chunk of that is going to be eaten up by national insurance increases.

If that can stop you—? You're going to struggle to meet growing need now, aren't you? You're going to be at a point where you're going to almost have to close doors or—. I know you won't ever do that, but—.

I think that's probably a question for either Sarah or Clare to answer, because they directly deliver services. But what I wanted to just reflect on as well is, in a policy sense, there is work continuing at pace. So, the ending homelessness national advisory board, which I sit on, is doing a huge amount of work in areas of priority, to set out and plan a route through what we know are some of these challenges. So, for example, Clare is chair of the workforce group and I'm sure will be able to speak at length about that. There is also a group looking at rapid rehousing and the role of supply of new housing, and achieving those ambitions. So, there is work and thinking going on in the background, but I don't think that gets us away from the fact that those front-line services are going to be under continued pressure over the next 12 months.

Thank you, Rhea. Sarah.

I think that's the—. I agree with everything that's been said already, and the only point that I would underline is the ability of the other organisations in the system to support and to respond, just because of capacity and pressures: response from the police, from mental health services, ambulances for people, staff are literally—'left holding the baby' is the phrase. The services are brilliant, the staff are amazing; one description was about thousands of acts of kindness and professionalism every day, which really sums it up. But their ability to access the people who need to be there, to provide the support in the moment—they really struggle with that, yes.

If one of the partners really can't do much more, that really destabilises the whole package, doesn't it?

Well, my perception of it is it really impacts on the individual member of staff. That's where you will see it, in there, real stress and that anxiety about the situation. Because they have to go home, don't they, knowing they've left somebody in really difficult circumstances and have been unable to draw in the support that the individuals need. So, that is something, as Clare mentioned already, that is becoming much more frequent, and it is just because of pressure on the statutory services, I think.

Yes. It's a common scene all through the day today about these same pressures; it is a really worrying situation. Thanks for sharing that.

If I could move on, then, and just ask you a little bit about your views, your thoughts, on local authorities and their commissioning. You know, are they commissioning the right kinds of services? Whoever would like—. Clare.

Shall I start, or do you want to, Rhea? So, I probably covered a little bit of this in my previous answer, didn't I? So, sometimes local authorities aren't recommissioning when they ought to because of fears about what the outcome might be, but there are also some really good examples of where local authorities have commissioned new services. So, we work across four councils in terms of delivering housing support services, and after the pandemic—. So, during the pandemic, one of our night shelter services was closed, for all the reasons you'll understand and know, and Wrexham County Borough Council commissioned us to build in place of a night shelter 20 apartments on the same site that could provide one apartment for support services and collaborative services to be brought together to be delivered on site. So, we don't send people to the doctors because they might not turn up there; the idea being that the model is there on site for people. And some of those flats will be direct access.

So, local authorities are commissioning some new models; they've also commissioned us in Wrexham to deliver a new mother and baby service, which is a new property that was refurbished and is delivering some fantastic outcomes for the young mums who are moving in there. But I think, overall, at the moment, the huge pressures on local government in terms of the numbers of people coming through their doors, the numbers of people they have in temporary bed and breakfast accommodation, is unprecedented, and I worked in Flintshire before I started this job at ClwydAlyn, so I have got direct experience of what was going on in local authority homeless services back in 2018, and the picture is so challenging in local government now.

So, what I would say is that not enough of the new types of models are being commissioned, but I think some of that's down to budget and down to capacity, and I think that we still have some gaps, really. So, we have some gaps in terms of some of the most complex and challenging areas in terms of whether we're making steps to commission some new things that are needed, and I can add a bit more about that later on, and I think we've also got risks of contract hand-backs at the moment, where providers just cannot continue to meet the needs of the people accessing their services or continue to fund the service in full to protect and support the staff that they have working there. So, there are some real challenges.

Yes. Thanks, Clare. Sarah or Rhea.

Yes, I think that local authorities have done a lot of work, particularly through development of their rapid rehousing plans, to understand what housing need looks like in their area. I think more needs to be done to truly understand housing need at a more granular level, to think about both the services that we require for the future but also the permanent homes. So, I suppose I almost would like to focus on the other side of the coin to what Clare's drawn on there, which is that work is ongoing at the moment, again—. Through the ending homelessness national advisory board, there is a rapid project looking at how data on housing needs is informing local authorities' decisions on housing supply and how it's driving that element as well, because if you think about the overall rapid rehousing approach, you will always need services of some kind. Hopefully that number reduces over the time as you're able to build up the number of permanent homes, but I see a kind of dual-stream approach in the work both of the local authorities and also Welsh Government on those issues.

Thank you. Sarah, anything to add?

The only thing I'd add to that is probably in terms of the housing needs and the stock. Obviously, it's really important. There's a big need for one-bed accommodation, and there are very general needs to housing associations—lots and lots of three-bedroomed family homes, but we're looking at the moment at a right-sizing project to really analyse, 'Well, what is the need?', because a lot of development is land-led, and actually, if you look at the figures, you find there's a lot of under-occupancy and over-occupancy in the existing stock. So, I think there's a piece of work to do there around really analysing that and thinking, 'Actually, maybe there's more downsizing of older people into smaller bungalows and supported accommodation, and free up accommodation.' So, there needs to be some time spent on looking at what else is possible as well as the new build.

Do you think councils are doing enough when they're looking at their local development plans, in that, because that's when it's fundamental to set the shape of that, isn't it?

I'm told it's quite a complicated process, the housing needs assessment, and the local authority were saying how they didn't think that that process was particularly helpful, and so we're piloting in Blaenau Ffestiniog, looking at what is the true housing need in the area. You've also got, as well, a lot of people living in really unsuitable accommodation. I know I'm probably going off topic here, but I do think it's part of the conversation that needs to happen. We see things like children with really complex disabilities living in rural areas and really unsuitable housing. For the majority of their childhood, they're growing up in a really unsuitable property, and so there's a need to build specialist accommodation. I think, sometimes, with the homelessness agenda we're losing sight of people who have housing need. They might not be homeless, but they have really strong housing needs that need to be addressed, and perhaps it's a topic for another inquiry, but it's definitely something I wanted to say today, because I think the children are quite often forgotten.

Yes, good point. Thank you. Thank you, John.

Okay, Peter. And Lee. Lee Waters.

I've asked about data evaluation and monitoring, and we've heard consistent evidence about the disconnect between the reporting that is provided to local authorities and the national outcomes reporting, on which I know in Adra's written evidence you mentioned there is a deal of staff disillusionment about the amount of time involved when this isn't published. But we understand the Welsh Government intend to publish it. So, put that to one side, and let's give them the benefit of the doubt that they're going to publish it. More broadly, what are we getting wrong, do you think, in terms of getting the right data and using it in a way to drive service improvement rather than simply a data collection exercise to make it look like we're doing the right thing? What can we recommend that would actually make things better?

I think this is linked back to the question of understanding housing need, because to know the difference that you are making, you first need a clear understanding of your starting point and then the outcomes and progress that are being made through monitoring and reporting processes. So, I think, for me, that question is part of a bigger issue around the extent to which we both understand the need that is out there and how effectively we are responding. One fairly consistent bit of feedback that I've had from members is that we are broadly measuring the right thing but we're measuring a lot of things, so I think there is a question about the extent to which the various monitoring frameworks can be streamlined, the way in which they can speak to each other, and the way in which we focus them on the things that are going to make the greatest difference. Because you can collect any kind of data you want, but you really want to know what's having the greatest impact. I'm conscious that we're dealing with services and front-line workers who are under huge pressure, and so I think we need to think about the proportionality of data, not that it's not important, but just to be absolutely sure that we are measuring the right things and that we are committed to analysing that data and having a conversation about what next is based on it, and there are a couple of parts of that puzzle that are presently missing.

The feeling that has come through in the evidence this morning is that the feeling is that the outcomes data was co-produced, has value, and should be given time to bed in. Part of the challenge then is the patchwork of different data different local authorities are requiring based on their own capacity and whatever is motivating them to ask for different things. That's harder to streamline, because inevitably that's the problem we have with anything to do with local authorities: there are lots of them and they all do things slightly differently. So, how do we suggest that is approached in a way that is likely to be effective?

I think both Clare and Sarah have direct experience of this so are probably best to respond.

Yes. I think it's a really difficult question to answer. I don't know if Clare has got a specific solution there. But from what we see for the biggest housing support contract we run, the data goes into the system and we've never seen anything back, so it's hard to know what that data is used for. That's the feedback from the staff, that they spend a lot of time completing forms, and so we've recently just said that we'll start to analyse it ourselves, then, to see. I think it'll be easier to answer the question once we've started to do our own analysis of it.

Do you find that there's duplication between the national outcomes reporting and the local authority reporting?

I'm not sure, to be honest. Do you have anything to add to that, Clare?

I agree with everything Rhea said on this question. I think she's covered off the main points. I think the challenge is that there is inconsistency. There is a lot of data asked for in some places and we have to question, I think, how much time we want staff to be collecting data and how much time we want staff to be working directly with people. But I also think that there is an opportunity to perhaps think at the national level about how we might streamline this, both in terms of, if you like, the quantitative data but also the qualitative data, and perhaps some clear guidance from local authorities through the commissioning guidance that they provide—so, from the Welsh Government to local authorities that says, 'This is how we expect this grant to be commissioned, and this is how we want data produced to inform the impacts and outcomes of the programme.' I think there's an opportunity, perhaps, to do some work to refresh some of that in the coming year.

Thank you. That's a clear message from all of you. If you have time to reflect on any specifics, I think we'd be interested in hearing from you later. There's the separate but related question, then, about regulation and inspection. Scotland and England have different but statutory regimes, we do not. What's your view on that?

Just in response to your previous question, I'm really happy to go out to our membership and ask for a clearer answer for you on that.

With regard to inspection and regulation, the question for me, first and foremost, is this: at the present moment, where do we know that risk to service users is potentially coming from? Is it a gap in inspection and regulation or is it coming from other places? And my sense of where risk is presenting at the present minute is that people have got prolonged stays in temporary accommodation that is unsuitable for their needs; we've got services that are, in effect, understaffed, because of either the complexity of needs of the complete cohort of people living there or the services are not funded to provide the staffing levels that are needed; and I think that there's also risk in access to wider support services—so, the sort of examples that Sarah was speaking through. At the present minute, I don't see risk to service users originating from there not being a form of regulation, and I think that there are lots of protective factors in the system that do offer some assurance. There's potentially a question about the extent to which they are joined up, but those protective factors are there.

Services are inspected by local authorities, first and foremost; that system exists. When we think about the organisations delivering these services, they will have their own governance arrangements that ensure that there is scrutiny of the actions that bodies are taking. Registered social landlords are highly regulated bodies. I know that that's not the same for other organisations, but for example the third sector organisations will have their boards and the charity code of governance and conduct and so forth. So, there are protective factors in place. Services are audited on their performance. I think that, were we to think about where risk is coming from and how that can be mitigated, I don't believe at present that that points to a gap in regulation, I think it points to gaps in investment in the workforce, the ability and capacity of wider partners to come together because they are also under exceptional pressure, and that people shouldn't be spending long periods of their lives in temporary accommodation. We should be doing more to get people into a stable home that they can call their own. For me, those are the areas where I feel that risk is presenting and, were we to prioritise, that is where I put effort.

Thank you.

Okay, Lee. You are content. Siân.

Thank you very much, Chair. I'd like to turn to cross-sector working. Evidently, there are problems related to all of that. How can we improve that in terms of that collaboration and joint working?

I'll answer in Welsh. There are problems, but the problems aren't related to the individuals and the teams within the different organisations. Everyone's on the same page in terms of wanting to make a difference; that's why they go into the sector in the first place. It's more in terms of the time and so on, getting the strategic buy-in. That's what's been impacted by the cuts over the years, and it's really important that we take the time out of the day job to keep our sights up, rather than looking down, as the chief executive of Adra says, to discuss, to have that culture change, to ensure that we all understand the pressures on the different organisations. That's really important, I think. And I think COVID has had an impact on that as well, to some extent, so it's important that we get the time away from the day job to have that strategic overview face-to-face, to really understand the pressures and to come up with more collaboration on a local basis.

Certainly in my career, I can look back to periods of time when there was better collaboration, and I think over the last few years, what I see in local government, in health, the police and the criminal justice system has been that austerity and increasing pressures on statutory services has meant that many organisations have changed their eligibility criteria for service, so they can only provide services to those who have the most significant needs, which means that we do much less of the preventative work that enables people to not transition to the more complex services in the future. So, I think thresholds has been a real issue, and less of a focus on prevention.

I think the ambition in the draft homeless legislation, which is to make ending homelessness a broader-based public sector duty, could be a helpful tool or lever in encouraging that more joined-up working again in the future. I can give some good examples of where we've had some really good practice in the last few years, but they're not consistent; they're one-offs. They're often pilots; new money is found for a period, there are some great outcomes, and then those things stop when the funding is no longer there. They don't become the mainstream things that we all hoped and anticipated that they would. So, I think there's a real pressure for public services, but I think unless public services are able to start to think more and invest more in prevention, then we're still going to face these crises that we're facing now.

I don't think any of it is about the lack of willingness from people in those services to work together, or a lack of understanding that joining things together is going to deliver better outcomes for people, but I think there are so many pressures in the system around time and resources that I think is leading to us not doing the best for the people that we're here to serve all the time.

And just a final point that maybe touches on both Sarah and Clare's reflections: both have acknowledged that the housing support workforce is not alone in being under exceptional pressure, and times being very, very difficult. That is shared across the whole public sector. I think it's important to ask ourselves honestly about the best route to change at a time when everybody has been operating in something that feels like a crisis for a sustained period of time. Because I think whilst collectively we are all desperate to turn the ship, to make an impact, there is also something about the number of reforms that a system and people within it can handle at any one time. I think Clare's really right to point to the duty for co-operation within, certainly, the White Paper as a positive example of something that might help shift the dial. But we might also want to think about ways of encouraging and supporting, rather than always directing, to bring about the change that we want to see. It's something that we hear a lot from our members: that, actually, some of the greatest innovation and the most sustainable partnerships are driven when people are encouraged to the table, rather than being required to be there. So, there's something about how it is that we are sharing and socialising great practice and inspiring people to adopt that or to consider what's right for their community. I suppose what I'm urging, really, is I think there's a balance to be struck between supporting and directing on quite a lot of these issues.

Do you think, perhaps, that really it is wrong to go down that route that the White Paper is proposing, to set duties on public bodies, and that we need to do it from a different direction entirely?

No, I don't think that I can say that conclusively. I think that what I'm encouraging is that we ask ourselves the question about, alongside legislation—and there is a lot in there to be excited about—how are we supporting people to deliver that change: as well as setting out requirements, what support is in place to achieve that?

I agree. Maybe a little bit of both approaches. We need to get those people around the table, but without forgetting that that isn't going to necessarily change the culture or the way that people work. So, there is something about getting everybody to be on the same page, to understand and to collaborate, because you could have a meeting, but nothing could be done differently as a result of it.

Is there any good practice in relation to service users who may have needs that are too complex for traditional housing support because of their long-term health and social care needs? Rhea.

Clare and I were speaking about this yesterday. Clare, I think you've got a couple of really powerful examples on this point.

Thank you. I can give examples where we've achieved good outcomes, though, actually, we've achieved them because we've had a flexible local authority who's been willing to change the shape of what we've been commissioned to deliver.

One of the key challenges that we face—and these are all about dignity for the people that we're here to serve—is end of life. You'll know that those people who've experienced, particularly, street homelessness have much reduced life expectancy, and what we find is that, where we have had people sometimes who are reaching the end of life, it's almost impossible to move them into hospice-type services, because the eligibility criteria to get into those services and all the demands on those services, as you'll know, many of which are provided by voluntary third sector organisations, mean that those really complex people living in our homelessness services cannot qualify to move into them. We're then faced with really challenging situations about how we provide the right support for people. The sorts of things we think that could work well in the future would be what I'd call a floating hospice at home-type service—so, can we bring services to people where they are staying at the moment.

I think the other area that's a real challenge is around people with substance use challenges, where rules in projects are often that people cannot take substances, nor can they consume alcohol in the project. If somebody is heavily dependent, that doesn't mean that they don't drink or they don't take substances, but it can mean that they put themselves in very vulnerable situations by having to leave the project for a period of time to take the substances that they need to take to live. We've had examples where we've worked really flexibly with local authorities where we've felt that there's been somebody who's really at risk by doing that, and we've sought their approval to enable us to allow, safely, somebody to support their addiction. What I would say that that leads to, though, is that we need to have some brave conversations about whether it's right for so many projects to be what are called 'dry projects' and whether or not there is a need to provide more projects across Wales for those who have substance misuse issues. And we really need to support them to be able to live safely and as well as possible in those services, rather than, perhaps, some arbitrary rules that actually lead to increased risks for those people. Diolch.

Okay, Siân?

Yes, thank you.

Okay. We'll move on to Lee, then—Lee Waters.

It's just to ask about what you think the future of housing support should look like. We know that the Welsh Government has said that housing first should be the default position; obviously, that depends on houses being available to house people in. So, with that as a given, what, specifically, does the RSL sector need to be able to provide the homes that will be required to make this policy meaningful?

Something I hear a lot from our members is about the confidence that has been built through multi-year settlements of capital funding for social landlords in Wales. That builds confidence amongst RSLs, amongst our funders and so forth, and allows RSLs to take risks with confidence, because we know there's a steady stream of capital investment and it's a priority for Government. People are universally positive about that move and that we've reached that position with capital budgets. To achieve everything that the RSL sector wants to achieve and the full part that it wants to play, alongside partners in the third sector and local authorities, with regard to rapid rehousing, we need the same kind of certainty on revenue funding. We started this conversation by describing what it feels like to be campaigning on behalf of people who feel like they're fighting for survival each year. If we want to see a rapid rehousing ecosystem in which we have all the key ingredients, then we really need to think about ways in which we can move to a multi-year settlement for the housing support grant so that services have confidence that they can extend the contracts of their workforce, give them job security, are able to make training investments and investment in qualifications and so forth. To date, it hasn't seemed to be possible to reach that multi-year certainty with regard to the revenue part, but I think that would be a really enabling action were we able to secure that.

Thank you.

Okay. Anything to add from Clare or Sarah? No? Oh, Clare.

Thank you. I agree with Rhea: a multi-year funding commitment is essential, also a funding level that better meets the needs across our nation so that we can prevent more homelessness and we can make sure that those people who've been homeless are only ever homeless once and can keep the roof over their heads that they're then provided with for the longer term. But I think, looking to the future, we will need more floating support services. So, the housing first model, or rapid rehousing, absolutely rightly means that we use ordinary accommodation in the community, but we need to make sure that support services are there for as long as they are needed to enable people to live well in those homes and live well with their neighbours.

I also think that there's a big ask and challenge around recognition of this sector for the hugely valuable life-changing and lifesaving work that it does. So, we need to have sufficient funding in the system that allows us to pay people the appropriate rate of pay for the work that they do. We need to make sure that those staff have sufficient time allocated during their working week for training, for reflective practice, and we need to make sure that, over time, we can support the professionalisation of the sector through training and qualification programmes. There's quite a demand from people within the sector that we help them to see the homelessness sector as a career, and that we have better career planning and support for people, so that we recognise that skills they have, perhaps those are recognised through a qualification framework, such as an ILM, where people's work on the ground is accredited, and that that could lead to a job structure that saw people's pay changed as they gain recognition for the skills and qualifications that they've got.

And then, I guess, my last one, which is a real biggie, is we have to change the public perception around homelessness. I think when we talk about pressures in the social care system—and I feel I can do that, because we also provide those services—there is a great recognition and support from the general public in Wales about the value of the services that people receive in home care, but, actually, we don't have the same view about services that are needed for those who've experienced homelessness. So, I think, as a nation, we have a duty, really, to change the public perception around this, because what that will then lead to is people wanting to join the sector and work in it, people seeing it as a career choice, and it will lead to an acceptance that we need to provide the funding that we need to to make sure that this becomes much less of a problem in the future. Thanks.

Okay, Clare. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming in to give evidence to committee today. Thank you, Rhea, and thank you, Sarah. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy in the usual way, but just to say, once more, diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

Diolch.

Diolch. Okay. We will break until 1 p.m. Only one more evidence session to go, I'm afraid.

Okay, we've reached our fourth evidence session today, then, on housing support, and I'm very pleased to welcome witnesses from local government here in Wales: Councillor Andrea Lewis, deputy leader of Swansea Council, who is representing the Welsh Local Government Association; and Elliw Llŷr, policy strategy and commissioning manager for Isle of Anglesey County Council. Welcome to you both.

Perhaps I might begin with some questions on Welsh Government strategy before we turn to other committee members and their questions. So, firstly then, in your view, does the Welsh Government have a clear long-term plan for the future of housing support?

Yes, so I think that, firstly, Welsh Government should really be commended for maintaining the distinct funding and commissioning arrangements for what was the Supporting People programme and is now the housing support grant. However, it's worth noting that the long-term plan, when it was devised, it was a totally different homelessness context, quite different to the unforeseen social and economic circumstances that we find ourselves in now, which has at the very least delayed part of that decision for a considerable number of years now. So, some aspects of the new legislation do feel like they are compounding some of the operational challenges facing councils at present, and addressing the general housing market and its affordability, I feel, is paramount to having a realistic long-term plan for the future of housing support.

Okay, Andrea, thank you very much. Did you want to add anything from an Ynys Môn point of view, Elliw?

As one of the counties that does implement the housing support grant programme and the rapid rehousing programme, we welcome this commitment from the Welsh Government and we're implementing this on a daily basis within the homelessness services that we provide. Certainly, over the past few years, we've seen that the housing support grant is coming closer to homelessness services and is dealing with homelessness issues, but, as has already been noted, there are major challenges facing us, and the issues that we see on a daily basis are very challenging to respond to in terms of individual circumstances and the circumstances within society and the ability to provide appropriate support to the person at that time. Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr. Is it your view, then, that the Welsh Government's emphasis on rapid rehousing and housing first is appropriate and the best way forward?

Would you like me to come in on that?

Yes, if you would, Andrea, please, yes.

So, local authorities, we very much support the approach for both rapid rehousing and housing first. However, we do need to acknowledge it is quite challenging in the context of a lack of supply of affordable housing and the capacity to reconfigure services. Securing appropriate move-on options to get single people out of emergency and temporary accommodation, I think this is challenging across all areas of Wales.

Yes, okay. Anything you'd like to add, Elliw?

On housing first, we in Anglesey were amongst the first to introduce that model, and we have worked very closely with Wallich on the accreditation side, and I'm sure we'll touch on that later on, but certainly we have seen the impact of getting a person into a house rapidly and in a way that is planned, and the services can then be brought around that. But, as you've said already, the supply and getting housing of high quality is a challenge as well for us as a local authority.

I see. Would you have a view on the extent to which you think Welsh Government's approach is informed by data on the need for support?

Yes. So, the outcomes framework for housing support grant services is still relatively new, and I feel it would provide an opportunity for better integration into service feedback and future commissioning decisions by councils. Locally in Swansea, the ability for local authorities to collect, collate and analyse other sources of data apart from the outcomes framework on performance from services is directly related to the commissioning resources available for the housing support grant programme in each council. So these resources are determined by a range of pressures from all areas within the local authority, and this may not be consistent in terms of across Wales. You may have local issues that are very much localised and not on an all-Wales basis, just to note that.

Okay. And again, Elliw, don't feel that you have to add anything, but you're very welcome to if you wish.

Just in terms of the data, data is very important to us in terms of the commissioning side, and we do gather that data and report back to the Welsh Government. Perhaps what isn't seen then is the use made by the Welsh Government of that data. But I also think it's important as local authorities that we do have the freedom to be able to commission the services that we need, and that it isn't something that is forced upon us nationally. We all have different issues and we need to be able to respond to those locally.

Sure, Lee. Lee Waters.

If I could come in on this point with some of my questions, because they're relevant. Because the evidence we've had consistently this morning is that there's a welcome for the outcomes-based framework, but as Andrea Lewis said, there's a feeling that it's still bedding in. The data has not been published by the Welsh Government yet, so that's caused a good deal of frustration, but also there's this issue of double reporting, if you like, as you mentioned there, in Ynys Môn, the importance of the need to commission your own data bespoke to the services you want to deliver. But that does create then an extra level of reporting, and having created a framework based on co-production that people can buy into, there is some feeling in the sector that given the shortage of staffing and the lack of transparency as to how the data is used, there is too much reporting, and a lack of strategic sense that this is being used to drive service change. I wonder what your response is to that.

Okay. Who would like to go first?

From the Anglesey council perspective, we have developed one approach to reporting for all of our providers on the island. Again, I think that is good practice, and the feedback we've had from our providers is that they do find it easy to follow; there is consistency there across providers. We can then produce that report in time for Welsh Government, but also we then use that for our commissioning and for our needs assessment. So, I would think that we in Anglesey do use that data on a regular basis, and we change and commission for the need that is there.

And perhaps on an all-Wales basis.

If I could possibly add to that, I agree with what Elliw has said. The data that we're gathering on a local basis does help inform our local commissioning. So, I wouldn't see it as duplication, as such; I think it's just—. As I said, it's not a consistent approach across Wales, so you do have that local impact as well, so that local data is really important then in terms of our services.

How would you feel about an effort to streamline the local reporting, so that there is greater consistency?

I don't see any harm in that. I think if we could have consistent local reporting then, obviously, you can look across Wales and maybe see where there are differences, but also where there are consistent challenges and similarities. So, I think that could be helpful, personally.

Would there be any resistance in Ynys Môn to that?

We would also be very willing to demonstrate how we've developed that framework and how we've done that on a joint basis with our providers. Hopefully, that would be seen as good practice, and we're happy to share our experiences and information and how we gather it.

But you'd be resistant to changing that in order to be part of an all-Wales streamlining. Am I right to infer that or am I interpreting too much?

No opposition at all. We report on what the outcomes are from the Welsh Government. So, not at all—we would welcome that consistency.

Diolch.

Okay. In terms of rapid rehousing and housing first, which we covered briefly earlier, do either of you foresee any possible unintended consequences from that rapid rehousing and housing first approach? Is there anything in particular you'd flag up?

Councils are recognising the need for these changes in their commissioning approaches. However, delivering the commitment is hugely challenging without a significant increase in the supply of particularly one-bedroomed accommodation, and without this very thing, a rapid rehousing approach would be—. You know, it is challenging to deliver because of the lack of affordable housing supply, and particularly one-bedroomed living, we know, is in great shortage, I suspect across Wales, but definitely in Swansea.

All right. And Elliw.

As I mentioned, we on Anglesey were amongst the first to introduce Housing First; it's been in place for 10 years now here. We do that jointly with the Wallich as one of our commissioned services. I think it's succeeded so well because of the partners that we have, we have a very good relationship with the mental health side, and we have a pathway, then, into that service. It's important that health and other services, like substance misuse, and those other services come with us when there's someone who needs Housing First. But we have seen very good results with people going into Housing First and maintaining their tenancies, and we have had lived experiences, if you like, of someone going on that journey. With rapid rehousing, I think that is incredibly challenging for us, and as has been mentioned earlier, in terms of the supply and the demand for the units.

Yes. Sure. Diolch yn fawr. Peter Fox.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Just following on on the data side of things, so, clearly, in Ynys Môn, you've got a real grip on your data, and you know where you are and things. But perhaps, Andrea, could you give us a wider perspective of where councils are in understanding that comprehensive data picture they need to provide the support needed? Is there a consistent approach or is there a lot more that could be done? And those who have got data, and appropriate data, are they using it in the best way?

So, as I said previously, the outcome—apologies. The comprehensive data, the outcomes framework, is still bedding in at the moment, and I think once that's bedded in, that will be very helpful. It's very difficult to answer your question in terms of the localised collection of data, because that's not something, to my knowledge, that is shared across the piste; I think that is held on a local level. So, it's something that we could take away from this meeting today and certainly ask the question, through the WLGA to the council network, if that's helpful, and feed that back.

I think that'd be really useful, so that we could get a consistent picture, and see what the picture is across Wales. That's where the benefits of a small country should be, in the sharing good practice, really, and how we can get everybody in the right place. So, thank you for that. I don't know, Elliw, if there's anything you want to contribute from a wider perspective of your knowledge of other authorities. Don't feel you have to, but if you want to.

We have just appointed a regional officer for local authorities across north Wales, and sharing the templates, if you will, in terms of monitoring and reporting, is something that we want to share more widely across north Wales, and data is clearly one of those aspects. So, we are on the journey, hopefully, towards achieving that.

Thank you. An obvious question, really, but what difference would it make to your ability to commission services to meet and support need, if you had that longer term indicative funding picture? I mean, how much is that holding local authorities back, not having that longer term financial picture?

Perhaps if I could come in on that, if that's okay. So, obviously, a long-term indicative funding settlement would be hugely positive, giving local authorities a much greater degree of certainty in relation to ongoing commissioning and reshaping our services, to best meet changing and growing patterns of service demand. The housing support grant uplifts in 2024-25 and 2025-26 will be hugely helpful in terms of stabilising commissioned services, recruitment, retention and quality of services, but I think it should be worth mentioning that, for all concerned, the last-minute funding top-ups and uplifts can be quite challenging, so that's why I feel that a longer term settlement would enable us to plan, and it would also give a lot of certainty to our third sector and voluntary organisations that we commission to deliver these services. So, absolutely, long-term funding would be very much welcomed.

And Elliw.

I agree with Andrea. Thank you for summarising that.

Okay. Thanks very much. We've heard a lot of evidence today, and I wouldn't mind understanding a little bit more from you about how local authorities are changing their commissioning more towards rapid housing and housing first. Now, I hear what Elliw and Ynys Môn are doing, and that's a good example, but we hear, perhaps, there's an inconsistent approach. Andrea, what's the WLGA's position on where the authorities are in that journey?

So, I think it's worth noting that councils are operating at the moment in a really challenging environment, with the continuous growth in the need for support services, and we're seeing a huge increase in the complexity of need of many of our service users. Councils are aware and recognise the pressures on many of our providers as well. So, a full eligible and reasonable cost-recovery model, in general, is strived for, in an ideal world, along with Welsh Government guidance on how local authorities could help scrutinise costs. Where service costs have increased, and housing support allocations have not in previous years, then there have been service providers who have met deficits, and we've heard that some local authorities have tendered for services with fixed costs, but no-one has tendered. So, these are the challenges that we currently face.

Thank you. Elliw, your neighbours across north Wales, you talked about that partnership role before, are they all on the same page in the north?

In the context of Housing First specifically, I think that that can be challenging for local authorities, as I mentioned. We are operating that model on Anglesey, and as I mentioned, we've worked with the Wallich, they provide that model to us. They need to be accredited, and that is quite a process to go through, to become accredited in terms of Housing First, and we helped them, if you like, and were a partner to them on that journey. So, perhaps there is still a lack of information and uncertainty about what exactly Housing First is in some local authorities, and what it means as well for providers because it's a long process, and as far as I know, I think it's only the Wallich who have been accredited fully up until now.

Thank you. A final point: we've had witnesses that have expressed a view that local authority commissioning is sometimes a bit unrealistic, with budgets not reflecting the full costs of the specification. I just wondered what your views might be on that. Andrea, do you want to come in?

Yes. I think, at the end of the day, as local authorities, we have to cut our cloth according to the finance that we receive, and sometimes it's not always possible to pass on, maybe, full costs, as that's perceived. We have a budget, we have a limit, and we try and spend it to the best of our ability to help as many people and support as many people as we possibly can. But as I mentioned in my previous response, with a lot of people, we're seeing some really complicated, complex needs, which is very resource intensive and multiple agency support is required, which is costly. So, we make the most of what we can, and we work closely with our providers and have a relationship with them to hope that if they do find funding difficult, that they would be able to come to us and have that conversation to be able to help manage that better. But it's challenging across the piste at the moment; we have essentially a homelessness crisis, and the resource demand is extremely intensive, and we recognise that we can't deliver these services without our partners, and we value that relationship with our partners, so if there are constraints, then I would imagine we would be very willing to try and work with them, to try and resolve those and help overcome those.

One bit of evidence we heard earlier from one of the people who came in was talking about how councils are holding back from retendering various services, and they are then having to continue delivering on an old tender that is actually running at a loss, and there seems to be—. Local authorities are holding back—. Is there any sort of WLGA perspective on that? Is it a fear of increasing costs, or is it just capacity?

It could be a capacity issue. I'm not aware of this being an issue across other councils in Wales through a WLGA perspective, but I can reassure you that on a local level in Swansea we've just gone through our retendering of our services, so that is something that we've carried out over the last few months. Again, I can probably take that away if it's helpful and get a response through the WLGA of where other councils are and their position on this.

Thanks, Andrea. Elliw, is there anything you want to add to those points?

From the Anglesey perspective, we are in a commissioning cycle and we are going through the commissioning process now, because it provides us with an opportunity to review and to adapt the service to adapt to what the demands are upon us. So, we certainly are making progress on that.

Just in terms of the concerns that have been expressed by providers about costs, until we received the uplift last year, and the assurance of an uplift this year, almost all of our providers approached us with concerns that if the level of the grant remained the same, they wouldn't have been able to maintain their service, and there was a high risk that they would have to return the contract to us.

Okay, thank you. Thanks, John. That's all.

Okay, Peter. Thank you very much. Lee.

You've already covered a good deal about your views about the use of data, but I just wanted to ask in terms of the situation around regulation. So, Scotland and England both have regulation of housing support services and inspection to enforce it. That doesn't happen in Wales. We've had mixed evidence about it this morning. I want to know your view on whether or not there is enough quality control.

So, obviously the outcomes framework for housing support grant services is relatively new, but we hope that that will provide an opportunity for better integration into service feedback and future commissioning decisions by councils. The ability for local authorities to collect and analyse other sources of data on performance from services is directly related to the commissioning resources available for the housing support programme in each local authority. So, these resources are determined by a range of pressures from all areas within the local authorities, and therefore may not be consistent across Wales. So, I think Welsh Government guidance could address key performance data. If they enable us or explain to us the key performance data that they would like to see, then that can help inform us in terms of how we collect data and make it more consistent.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, Lee?

Thank you. That's all I have.

Diolch yn fawr. Peter, back to you.

I just wanted to probe a little bit on cross-sector working and get your perspective on some of that, if I may. We heard that partnership working between housing and wider public services is somewhat patchy across Wales and is often driven by individuals rather than being hard-wired into the system as an expectation. Would you agree with that? And if there is a problem, what are the barriers that local authorities are facing?

We recognise the pressures from across all public services in Wales, especially health services. We need to use existing partnership structures to recognise the benefits for more effective partnership working and to share good practice examples across the different parts of Wales. Capacity, I think, is one of the main barriers to achieving this for local authorities and for other public sector partners, but it is critical, in my opinion, that we work closely together, because this isn't just a local authority issue, this is an issue for all our partners, and we need to come together to help to resolve that.

Do you concur with that, Elliw?

Yes, I agree. With some services, we're seeing that we have a good relationship with them, and that is based very strongly on the person, and they understand our side of it and we understand their side. What we do consistently is make sure that we convey that message over to them. For example, at the moment we're working on a pathway for when people leave the hospital. We reach out to the local hospitals in order to make sure that we have that relationship. It's something that we have to do on a continuous basis, and it can take up our time. But the hope is, then, that the journey for that person, the client, will be better in the end.

Would more flexibility around the housing support grant help joint working, or isn't that an issue? Perhaps, Elliw, do you want to come back on that?

It depends, to be honest, on what the client group is. We do work very well with, for example, the substance misuse side, and we work very well with that partnership. They have their money coming into that service and we have the HSG on the other side. So, we can complement each other. So, perhaps one pot would complicate things, I'm not sure. But certainly, we do have examples where we all come together and we promote that multi-agency approach. It doesn't always come down to cost or resources, it's just that will to work together.

Thank you for that. I'll move on. Is there any good practice in relation to service users who may be too complex for traditional housing support because of their long-term health and social care needs? Could you point us in any directions on that?

Yes, perhaps if I can come in. Councils—we recognise that this is an area of increasing pressure, with a significant and growing proportion of service users having very much more complex needs. We would support the sharing of good practice across the different areas of Wales. This is an area where working together with health, social care, probation and area planning boards for substance use we definitely think would deliver better outcomes.

Okay. Anything further? No. Elliw, anything? You're okay. Right, okay. Thanks. The final one from me: one of the issues that has been raised, an issue of concern that has been raised is that, perhaps, a proportion of housing support grant is going to fund other services—perhaps long-term accommodation for people with learning disabilities, for instance. I just wondered how you might respond to that, or is this something that would concern you?

We recognise the financial and capacity pressures on all care and support services commissioned by local authorities, but we feel that simply excluding some people from eligibility of the HSG services and funding will not increase the overall level of funding for care and support. So, we support the current approach.

Okay. Elliw, do you want to come in on that?

Again, in Anglesey, we have been working very hard with services for adults to ensure that the level of grant that goes in and the level of support that goes in helps the individual from the perspective of the housing support grant and doesn't top up the care element, if you will. It has been a very long-running discussion over a number of years with providers and with the service, and I think that we are in a situation now where the balance is okay, where we know that we're contributing to preventing homelessness and that the service provides care. But it's still something that we consistently have the discussion on and we're reminding that it's only one element of support that we're there to provide.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Diolch, Peter. Lee, back to you.

Yes, so just finally to ask what you think the future of housing support should be. We've touched on the issue of supply to make sure that the housing first approach is credible, but beyond that, what more do you need to be able to meet that policy need, and any other thoughts you have on what this committee might consider recommending?

So, more than ever, housing support services need to be effective in actively preventing, as Elliw referenced, homelessness amongst those most at risk of being unable to access a suitable home or losing the home that they have. Maintaining flexibility in the HSG programme I think would allow a dynamic commissioning to be responsive to changing needs, and I think flexibility, if nothing else, is something that I think we would want to recommend to the committee today.

Thank you.

Okay, Lee. Are you content with that? Just a couple of concluding questions from me. Large-scale accommodation: we've heard concerns from some stakeholders in housing support that the commissioning of large-scale accommodation can be problematic, for example if it houses a lot of single people together in what some see as a sort of institutionalising setting. It's considered as in danger of institutionalising homelessness. What would be your view on that?

So, it's the WLGA view that sometimes economies of scale are necessary to achieve the commissioning and sustainment of resilient services that provide value for money, but this needs to be balanced with the need to provide individualised and trauma-aware services to avoid the concerns voiced by some of the stakeholders. On a local level in Swansea, we feel that all alternatives to B&B accommodation need to be considered. The larger schemes are developing in response to the current crisis, and the rate of increases of people in emergency and temporary accommodation, and now the lack of more emergency accommodation is causing us great difficulty. So, this provides better options, I feel, to emergency and temporary accommodation in bed-and-breakfast and hotels, and better facilities support on hand, and the ability to understand their needs to move on. And there's also an ability to create better accommodation when you have, for example, perhaps 70 people in a building; you can easily, then, bring in outside agencies to support those people and to give them advice and to give them, for example, employment and training and skills and benefit advice. So, there are distinct advantages to having larger accommodations, but we do recognise that there's also a need to have those niche, smaller accommodations for people particularly with very much complex needs to be able to deal with that. Not everybody will be suitable to be housed in a large site like that; it's not one size fits all.

No. Could I just ask you, Andrea—? I think your point that you see some advantages as well as perhaps drawbacks with that larger-scale approach—. So, are you saying it comes down to the needs of the particular service users, or are you saying that perhaps it's not ideal, but because of the practicalities of economies of scale and the need to get people out of bed and breakfast and so on, that it's necessary on that basis?

We do have the opportunity for some really quality larger-scale accommodation, so we shouldn't overlook that, because with the sheer numbers that we're dealing with at the moment, if we focused only on smaller properties with the smaller amount of individuals housed there, then I think we're missing a trick with those larger accommodations, but I still also feel that we need to be very sensitive with our placement. So, if we're looking at somebody that's got very complex needs—they might have substance misuse or alcohol addiction—we do have specific accommodation that is catered towards that, and then they have that specific individual support for their needs. So, I think it's a need for it all at the moment because of the sheer volume of people that we're seeing in emergency and temporary accommodation across Wales.

Okay, Andrea. And, Elliw, I guess the scale of the problem you face on Ynys Môn is rather different to a city like Swansea, but do you have a view on these matters?

An example from Anglesey is a supported housing unit that has 12 bed spaces. It was an old building previously, but it has gone through a programme to bring it up to standard, and every room now is an ensuite room, and that is because of significant investment on the capital side. So, that is specifically for younger people and it is one of the biggest schemes that we have. I do agree with Andrea that we need a range of provision. We have some smaller units, where up to four people can share that unit. But just to draw the Senedd's attention to a report by the Centre for Homelessness Impact, they've done a significant review on what a hostel is in this century, and the scale and the quality that's available there does vary, of course, and so perhaps that could be a point of reference for this group.

Okay, Elliw, diolch yn fawr. Finally from me, the Welsh Government is committed to making housing first the default approach that people with high levels of support need. Some local authorities do not yet have housing first provision. What would you say about that, Andrea? Is that something where the WLGA would have, perhaps, some work in hand to try and encourage all local authorities to move to housing first approaches?

Yes, the WLGA and Swansea fully support the Welsh Government's approach in terms of housing first. We know it works. In terms of the councils that are not yet following that, I think we need to share good practice and experience from those local authorities who are successfully delivering housing first provision, much like Anglesey, with those authorities where capacity restraints have meant that progress has been more limited.

In terms of the support element being delivered, practically, the provision of housing is still challenging, particularly for more complex client groups. It's possible that this could be one of the barriers that some of our local authorities are dealing with. So, sharing good practice and speaking to local authorities who are doing it, and then understanding the significant benefits that housing first can bring, I think will be really important.

I see. Andrea, could you tell us which local authorities are not yet, then, delivering Housing First?

I don't have that at my fingertips, but, again, I'm happy to take that away and come back to you with that information.

Yes, that'd be very useful. Thank you. And, Elliw, anything you'd like to say on these matters?

As one who implements a housing first model on Anglesey, I'm happy to share good practice and to make that link. We're available.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. I don't think there are any other questions from committee members, so let me just thank you both very much for giving evidence to committee this afternoon. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much. Diolch.

Diolch.

The next item on our agenda today is item 6, a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of this meeting and for items 1 and 2 of the meeting on 19 March. Is committee content to do so? I see that you are. We will move into private session.