Supporting People Service Review
Service: Caroline House. Service Address: Caroline House, 2
Longacre Road, London Road, Bath, BA1 5NL. Serivce ID Number: 33.
Service Provider: Bath Self Help Housing Association. Service
Provider Address: The Maltings, River Place, Lower Bristol Road,
Bath, BA2 1EP. National ID: 10021. Date: October 2005. Review
Officer: Rebecca Potter, on behalf of Bath & NE Somerset
Supporting People Team.
1.Report Summary
A review of the services provided by Bath Self Help Housing
Association at Caroline house, (2 Longacre) was carried out by
Rebecca Potter on behalf of Bath and North East Somerset
(B&NES) Supporting People Team.
The Review found that there are some serious problems around
health, safety and security at Caroline House, and this is
adversely impacting on the Project’s ability to deliver support and
so contribute effectively to the Supporting People agenda.
On paper the service is strategically relevant to B&NES
Supporting People programme and to the B&NES Housing Strategy,
(target client groups are young people at risk and single homeless
people with support needs), but in practice it is not attracting
service users from the target client groups who are also willing to
engage in support, and staff at Bath Self Help were of the
opinion that in its current state, Caroline House would neither be
suitable for, nor appeal to, young people at risk.
The Review found that the Project is currently
under-funded and if Caroline House is to be able to deliver
effective housing related support for the target client groups in
the future, there should be a greater amount of Supporting People
funding allocated.
The cost to Supporting People per unit per week is very low
compared to similar projects, but because only one day’s support
per week is provided, the hourly cost is expensive. The
Review found that staff time was often spent on housing management
issues rather than support and that the service is providing poor
value for money in its current state.
Stakeholders stated that there are many people in the target
client groups in Bath & North East Somerset who could benefit
from the service at Caroline House but that the project was neither
well known nor popular. They too were concerned about some of
the health, safety and security issues, particularly the fact that
this made the project unsuitable for the majority of the target
client group.
Staff at Bath Self Help were unable to arrange for service users
to be consulted as part of the Review and it was felt that it would
be more useful to consult with service users once changes have been
made. Staff pointed out that the majority of service users
were not interested in engaging with the service and were therefore
not receiving any support.
The services were assessed at level D in all areas under the
quality assessment framework (QAF), as laid out by the Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). Whilst it was found that
the policy and procedural framework as required by Supporting
People now exists, it is not working on the ground. Staff at
Bath Self Help were aware of the current problems and were
beginning to take steps to improve the quality of the
service.
The Review recommends that Bath Self Help produces Action Plans
by 1st February 2006 to tackle all the areas of concern, (there is
already one in place to resolve the health and safety issues), and
to demonstrate how the service will be brought in line with the
requirements of the Supporting People Framework.
It is hoped that the Provider will be able to ensure and
demonstrate that Caroline House will be delivering a quality
service to the target client groups before the end of this
financial year, (2005/2006). This will enable a new contract
to be issued for the start of the next financial year,
(2006-2007).
|
Service |
Units |
Supporting People Funding |
|
Caroline House |
17 |
£9,422.05 |
|
Overall Contract Value for Bath Self Help Housing Association
Services: |
|
£596,290. |
2. Introduction to Agency
Bath Self Help Housing Association was founded in 1983.
The Association is registered with and regulated by the Housing
Corporation as a social landlord and is an Industrial and Provident
Society member registered with the Financial Services
Authority. It has adopted the National Housing Federation
model of charitable rules.
Bath Self Help is a specialist supported housing provider
working in particular with young people and with homeless
people. It has around 178 homes in management, some of which
are general needs. The Association provides a range of
temporary accommodation with varying levels of support for homeless
households on behalf of Bath & North East Somerset Council.
These include the hostels at Bloomfield Road, Dartmouth
Avenue and Green Park, and a number of flats dispersed throughout
Bath and North East Somerset, known collectively as the Somer
Temporary Accommodation Scheme.
Its projects for young people include Pathways,
(accommodation-based and floating support), Cleveland House and
Cottage, Caroline House, the Hawthorns and the Foyer.
2.1 Background
Caroline House is managed by Bath Self Help Housing Association
on behalf of Bristol Churches Housing Association. There are
16 studio flats and 1 flat which is adapted for use by a disabled
person. The primary client group is young people at risk with
the secondary user group being single homeless people with support
needs. Caroline House cannot cater for people with high
support needs because of the limited staffing. Service users are
issued with assured shorthold tenancies and it is intended
that people move on within a period of two years.
2.2 Monitoring Information
Caroline House
|
2004/5 |
KPI 2 |
SPI 1 |
SPI 2a |
SPI 3a |
SPI 4a |
|
Quarter 1
|
50%
(1 out of 1) |
95.48% |
100% |
81.77% |
100% |
|
Quarter 2
|
100%
(2 out of 2) |
94.12
|
100% |
91.65% |
105.88% |
|
Quarter 3
|
100%
(3 out of 3) |
94.12 |
100% |
77.99% |
100% |
|
Quarter 4
|
0 |
94.12 |
100% |
97.60% |
100% |
|
2005/6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter 1
|
0 |
100% |
100% |
176.02% |
117.65% |
KPI 2 – The percentage of service users who moved on in a
planned way
SPI 1a – Percentage availability
SPI 2a – Percentage utilisation
SPI 3a – Percentage staffing levels
SPI 4a - Percentage turnover
2.3 Service Capacity and Funding
|
Service |
Units |
Support Staff |
Management Staff |
Supporting People Funding |
Cost per unit per week |
|
Caroline House |
17 |
0.2
(1 day per week) |
0.02 FTE |
£9,422 pa |
£10.63 |
SP funds a support worker for 1 day per week and the Review
found that this level of funding has not been sufficient to
ensure that service users are engaged or adequately supported.
The Project’s primary client group is young people at risk
and it also caters for single homeless people with low support
needs. Very little housing related support is being delivered
at the moment, and it appears that for at least one year the
majority of service users have not been engaging with support.
Instead, the support worker’s time seems to have been spent
carrying out housing management duties including monitoring rents,
reporting and arranging repairs, and trouble shooting day to day
problems.
3. Is the Service Strategically Relevant?
Caroline House is not currently making a large contribution to
the aims of the Supporting People Five Year Strategy mainly because
it is not providing support to the majority of its current service
users.This is partly because the low level of funding in place has
been insufficient to enable staff to work as intensively as
required with those service users who are choosing not to engage in
the support offered. In addition staff have had to prioritise other
housing management tasks and deal with ongoing health and safety
issues.. At the time of the Review it was not providing a
safe place for people to stay. However, it is felt that Caroline
House could become a valuable resource and one which will
contribute to the Five Year Supporting People Strategy, in
particular to: Objective 4 – Decrease levels of homelessness
through the provision of preventative services. The support should
equip service users with the skills required for independent living
and tenancy sustainment, thus making repeat homelessness less
likely in the future. Caroline House also has the potential to
contribute to Objective 6 – Providing services which help to
promote the health, safety and well being of individuals and of the
wider community, and Objective 8 – Improving the provision
of services for people who may be hard to reach or who are socially
excluded. Many service users at Caroline House have a history
of rough sleeping and past drug and alcohol problems.
The Services provided at Caroline House also fit with some of
the major aims of the Homelessness Strategy, 2003-2005,
particularly the aim to reduce the number of people who are rough
sleeping.
4. Legal / ODPM Guidance for service user groups
Following publication of the ODPM’s five year plan,
Sustainable Communities: Homes for All, in March 2005
the government published its’ strategy for tackling
homelessness. In Settled Homes: Changing lives, the
government have acknowledged the link between
homelessness prevention and the provision of support. The
overall aim of the strategy is to reduce the numbers living in
temporary accommodation by 2010. The specific aims are to expand
housing opportunities for all including those who need additional
support and/or are disadvantaged. Another aim is to reduce
homelessness by offering range of preventative measures.
Caroline House has the potential to contribute in a more meaningful
way to this agenda also.
5.Quality Assessment Framework (QAF) Outcomes
The objectives were assessed as follows:
|
QAF Objective |
Self Assessed Score |
Validated Score |
|
C1.1 Needs and Risk Assessment |
C |
D |
|
C1.2 Support Planning |
C |
D |
|
C1.3 Security, Health and Safety |
C |
D |
|
C1.4 Protection from Abuse |
C |
D |
|
C1.5 Fair Access, Diversity and Inclusion |
C |
D |
|
C1.6 Complaints |
C |
D |
Corporate policies and procedures are in place for all of the
above Core Objectives but the Review found that they were not
working on the ground.
The following concerns were identified whilst carrying out
validation visits to Bath Self Help’s offices and Caroline House,
and during consultations with staff and other stakeholders.
Needs & Risk Assessments have not been routinely carried
out.
Two service users who were recently signed up had needs and risk
assessments on file. Longer standing service users had
‘tenancy support plans’ . The Review was informed that it is
now intended that all service users will have their needs and risks
assessed and that these will be reviewed annually. There was
no evidence on file to suggest that this had been happening
successfully previously although there were some recent letters on
file inviting service users to attend needs and risk
assessment appointments. However it appeared that service
users had not attended the appointments.
Current service users do not have Support Plans.
New support plan pro-formas have recently been introduced across
Bath Self Help supported housing projects but service users at
Caroline House did not appear to have support plans. There were
letters on file to service users inviting them to attend support
plan meetings but service users had not attended.
Some service users have ‘tenancy support plans’ which cover
payment of rent, and general tenancy sustainment issues.
However, these plans did not appear to have been updated and
service users’ files seemed to demonstrate that many service users
had not had any recent contact with support staff. Two
service users who had moved in in August did not have support plans
almost two months later. One member of staff stated that service
users at Caroline House are not interested in engaging with support
workers. The Review was informed that there is an action plan
in place to ensure that all service users have a support plan which
is reviewed on a regular basis.
Security, Health & Safety
Corporate policies and procedures are in place to cover
security, health and safety but they are not keeping the project
safe. Serious concerns about the safety of the building were noted
on 6th October 2005 and staff informed the Review that these
problems have been getting worse for about 18 months.
NB Somer carried out a Health and Safety Inspection at Caroline
House on 14/10/05 and produced an Action Plan. All safety
concerns should be rectified by 3/11/05.
The building is owned by Bristol Churches Housing Association
and they are responsible for its upkeep and maintenance. Bath Self
Help staff informed the review that Bristol Churches do not respond
quickly to requests for essential repairs and that once repairs are
completed, facilities are often vandalised/damaged immediately
afterwards. The premises have not been decorated for around 7 years
and the communal areas are dirty and shabby. Major problems
observed on a visit to the premises on 6/10/05 included:
- The door to the main
entrance is insecure and people can (and do), just walk in off the
street.
- The fire door at the lobby
entrance has been removed, (by Bristol Churches to install as
the front door to a flat). The glass surrounding the
fire door frame was smashed and large pieces of broken glass
were exposed.
- The fire safety system was
out of action. The ‘in case of fire smash glass’ panels had
all been broken.
- The back door was propped
open, (staff informed us that this was the norm), and there
was a large pool of urine just inside the lobby.
- Evidence of vandalism all
the way up the stairwell including large holes in the wall.
The door to the boiler room had been damaged.
- First floor fire door
missing.
- Vandalism to reinforced
glazing, (where the entrance to the laundry used to be). Exposed
broken glass.
- Another fire door, (2nd
floor) had the top large glass panel missing and the lower one was
vandalised and broken.
- Where fire doors existed,
they had been propped open with bricks.
There are also a number of community safety concerns:
A number of particular incidents were pointed out by Bath Self
Help staff including:
- A young female tenant was
recently raped in her studio flat. The insecure front door had
enabled her attacker, who was known to her, to gain access to the
building.
- Concerns were expressed by
one member of staff that drug dealing is being conducted on the
premises.
- A serious threat had been
made by a service user against a member of staff. (He had
threatened to throw him down the stairs and break his
legs).
Over the last 12 months there
have been at least two sets of squatters who have moved into
Caroline House. In one instance the tenant was forcibly
ejected by persons known to him. These squatters have since
been evicted. In another instance it appears that a tenant
allowed a couple to move into his studio flat when he moved
out. A possession order has now been obtained from the court
but the warrant has not yet been executed and the squatters remain
in residence.
Protection from Abuse
There is a corporate Protection from Abuse Policy in place but
the Policy is not working as intended on the ground. As
stated above, two vulnerable service users have been assaulted in
their own flats by persons known to them. Whilst staff worked
with partner agencies and one vulnerable service user to try to
support them and move them to more appropriate accommodation it
could be argued that as a low support project Caroline House was an
inappropriate placement in the first place. The low level of
SP funding was not enough to enable intensive support work to be
provided. In addition the above health and safety problems
mean that Caroline House is not a safe place for vulnerable people
to be.
Fair Access, Diversity and Inclusion.
The primary client group for Caroline House is young people at
risk, with its secondary client group being single homeless people
with support needs. One support worker informed the Review
that he did not think it was appropriate to place any young people
at risk at Caroline House because it was so unsafe. Another
member of staff informed the Review that the project only appeals
to those who have no other options. The project is perceived
as being ‘a last resort’, and as such it does not invite
applications from a cross section of the community.
Risk and needs assessments are not being routinely carried out
and reviewed and as a result, it is difficult to see how the
project could currently be catering for diverse and
individual needs.
Complaints
There is a corporate complaints policy and procedure in place
and the Complaints Log contains several entries made by service
users concerning maintenance and repair issues. A number of
service users had complained about the lack of hot water and
several were awarded compensation from Bristol Churches Housing
Association as a result.
However, given the current state of the building, there were
surprisingly few complaints on file from service users, indicating
that either they did not care about the disrepair, or that they did
not feel that complaining would rectify the
situation.
One member of staff also reported that she had complained to
management at Bath Self Help Housing Association about the state of
disrepair at Caroline House several times over the past year and a
half and continually chased Bristol Churches for repairs to be
done. The health and safety inspection of 14th
October 2005 carried out by the Somer Group on behalf of Bath Self
Help has now led to concerted action being taken to finally address
the health and safety concerns. All health and safety repairs
and other repairs identified at the time of the inspection and two
subsequent inspections were completed before 7 November 2005.
The front door is secure and they are awaiting a magna lock and fob
system to provide greater security. In the meantime, security
staff are in place 7 hours per night to create a more safe and
secure environment.
6.Consultation with Stakeholders
Staff were consulted in the course of the Review and efforts
were made to set up meetings with service users. However,
staff reported that service users were not engaging with support
and that they would be unwilling to engage with the Review process.
It was also felt that it would be more useful to consult with
service users once the health and safety problems have been
resolved as it is hoped that staff will then be able to devote
their time and energy to supporting service users.
Other stakeholders were consulted including members of the
Housing Advice team, staff at and Julian House.
The main findings were:
- The Supported Housing and Policy Officer’s background and area
of expertise was in Housing Management rather than housing support
and she saw her role at Caroline House as being
primarily tenancy sustainment.
- In the run up to this Review it appeared that a lot of work had
been done by the Supported Housing Team Manager and other staff to
ensure that policies and procedures complied with the requirements
of the six Core areas of the assessments framework.
- There was an awareness amongst staff and management of the fact
that Caroline House was not working as intended, and that there
were some serious problems around health and safety and maintenance
at Caroline House.
- Two temporary staff had been covering the Supported Housing
Officer’s role since May 2005. It appeared that for at least
six months there have been very serious concerns about health and
safety issues at Caroline House and a number of other management
issues, including high rent arrears and possession
proceedings. These issues were taking up virtually all the
Supported Housing Officer’s time.
- The Supported Housing Team Manager reported that staff at
Caroline House had not always been included in team meetings, and
that they had perhaps not felt adequately supported. This view was
reflected by the Supported Housing Officer.
- Following on from the above, the review found that staff at
Caroline House were not really working to the Supporting People
agenda. Staff informed the Review that whilst most service
users have support needs, they were not necessarily willing to
address them and a number of service users were not actively
seeking to move on from Caroline House. As a result, at least
five service users had been at the project for more than two years,
(one had been at Caroline House for six years). These
‘long-stayers’ are now being evicted by Bath Self Help as the
majority of them are in breach of their tenancy agreement.
Breaches include rent arrears and nuisance .
- The Review found that a number of service users had very high
rent arrears, (one service users owed in excess of £2000.00) and
for a two month period leading up to the Review there had been no
reliable recording of incoming and outgoing voids/service users.
Previously this information had been accurately kept up to
date.
- Bath Self Help staff reported that it is a continual battle to
get Bristol Churches to carry out essential repairs and that there
is a problem with vandalism in the block. Because the front
door is insecure it is difficult to know whether it is service
users, their visitors or those with no associations with the block
who cause the damage.
- A stakeholder at Julian House stated that there is a demand for
the service at Caroline House but the service is not well known. He
said the service user whom he referred did not engage with support
despite the efforts of the Supported Housing Officer.
- Stakeholders were concerned about the lack of security at
Caroline House and pointed out that a secure entry system was
important to the well being of service users at Caroline House.
Currently, vulnerable service users are unable to prevent unwanted
visitors accessing the block. One stakeholder fitted a spy
hole in a service user’s flat door in an attempt to enable him to
deny entry to unwanted visitors.
- A stakeholder reported that the mail boxes inside the front
entrance were not secure and that in one case a service user did
not use Caroline House as his postal address but continued to have
his post sent care of Julian House for this reason. This made
it difficult for him to move on from the Day Centre at Julian House
and become more independent.
- Members of the Housing Advice team reported that there does not
seem to be a systematic way to keep referral agencies informed
about voids and that staff do not keep referral agencies informed
of the progress of the referral. They also reported that staff do
not appear to work with service users around move on and that if
service users are keen to move they expect to do so through the
Assisted Move on Scheme.
7. Evidence and Risk Assessment
At the time of the onset of the Review, October 2005), there
were clearly risks around the lack of security and problems with
health and safety at the project. Bath Self Help Housing
Association arranged for the Somer Group Health and Safety Adviser
to inspect the premises on 14th October 2005. An Action Plan
with deadlines was produced and Bath Self Help reported that
all health and safety repairs and other repairs identified at the
time of the inspection and two subsequent inspections were
completed before 7 November 2005. The front door is secure
and they are awaiting a magna lock and fob system to provide
greater security. In the meantime, security staff are in
place 7 hours per night to create a more safe and secure
environment.
8. Value for Money
|
Service |
Cost per unit per week |
Regional lower – upper quartile |
National lower – upper quartile |
No. of comparable services |
Cost per support hour |
|
Caroline House
|
£10.66 |
£77.83 - £258.41 |
£86.16 - £228.40 |
714 |
£22.26 |
The Unit cost per week is well below the regional and national
lower quartiles, (based on information prior to review).
However, because such a small number of support hours are going
into the service each week, the hourly cost is expensive,
particularly for a service which was supposed to be catering
for low support needs.
The Review found that for at least the past six months, much of
the work being done by the Housing Support Officer at Caroline
House could be classed as housing management, rather than
support. This may have been because at the time of the Review
there was a period of instability concerning staffing and the
project had a large number of health, safety and maintenance
issues. However the health and safety issues have been a
problem for a number of months according to both staff and
stakeholders.
There are clearly issues around value for money as the project
stands currently and it appears that it has been
under-funded. Staff have not had the time to work closely
with service users to encourage them to engage in support, and
positive outcomes for service users have been limited as a
result.
