A to Z Index
My Area...


Subscribe to Inform news icon

and get local news for free.

Supporting People Service Review

Service: Guinness Sheltered Schemes. Service Address: Church Street & Chelscombe, Weston, Bath, BA1 4BU (1). Chelwood Drive, Odd Down, Bath, BA2 2PR (2). Service ID Number: Church Street 4, Chelscombe 5, Chelwood Drive, 3. Service Provider: Guinness Care & Support. Service Provider Address: 17 Mendy Street, High Wycombe, SP11 2NZ. National ID Number: 10009121. Date: January 2007. Review Officer: Caroline Clark on behalf of Bath & NE Somerset Supporting People Team. 

1. Report Summary

Guinness Care & Support provide accommodation and support to older people with support needs at Church Street & Chelscombe and Chelwood Drive, Bath.  The Scheme Managers for both schemes are based at Guinness offices at Chelwood Drive.  A review of the service was carried out by Caroline Clark on behalf of the Supporting People Team in January 2007.

The service continues to be strategically relevant to the Supporting People programme in B&NES although there are issues about strategic demand for sheltered housing generally.  There is evidence of an overprovision of sheltered accommodation across the Bath and North East Somerset area and that much of this accommodation is being let to people with low or no identified support needs. 

There are longstanding problems of anti-social behaviour and vandalism in the Church Street area which is exacerbated by the design and layout of the flats and right of way to the High Street.  As a result four flats bordering the footpath are boarded up and have not been let since 2003/04.  Guinness are considering a number of options including diverting the footpath which runs through the middle of the scheme and appears to be the major cause of the problems.  The scheme is due to undergo an options appraisal during 2007 to look at its future.

At the last review the service achieved level B in Support Planning and level C in all other objectives.  Level B has now also been achieved in Security, Health and Safety and Protection from Abuse and the service is working above level C in Complaints and Needs and Risk Assessment. 

Feedback from residents was generally good, although all Weston residents were unhappy with the vandalism and problems in the area of the archway under the 4 boarded up flats at Church Street.  Residents at Chelscombe were particularly satisfied with their accommodation and all residents were happy with the service provided by Guinness.  Those living at Chelwood Drive were concerned about the nuisance caused by children from the neighbouring general needs accommodation.

Further investigation is needed into value for money of the services as while the unit cost is below local and regional benchmarks the cost per support hour is significantly higher.   The amount of support time given to individual service users is also well below the expected range.  This is due to Guinness only charging only 20% of the Scheme Manager’s time to support and they should consider revising this figure to bring them in line with other schemes. Value for money issues will be considered in further detail as part of the forthcoming sector review of sheltered housing services.

 

Church Street and Chelscombe

Chelwood Drive

Service type and capacity:

Older People with Support Needs

Sheltered Housing

10 units* (Church Street)

12 units (Chelscombe)

Older People with Support Needs

Sheltered Housing

50 units

(46 x 1 bedroom flats and

4 x 1 bedroom bungalows)

Annual Contract Value:

Block Subsidy Contract

Max Value @ 100% Usage

£4,393.56

Block Subsidy Contract

Max Value @ 100% Usage

£9,402.40



* although the Church Street contract states 14 units 4 of these have been out of use since 2003/04 and so have not been included.

2.         Introduction to Agency

At the time of the last review the Church Street & Chelscombe scheme was managed by Guinness Housing Association and Chelwood Drive was managed by Guinness Trust.  Both organisations are part of The Guinness Trust Group, a national provider of Care and Support to Older People.  The Group has a strong track record of working in partnership with residents, local councils, developers and other agencies and are currently working with over 100 local authorities.

In May 2005 management of the support staff ofat both schemes was transferred to Guinness Care & Support, a new company set up to help the Guinness Trust deliver the best services to residents with support needs.  Both schemes are managed from offices at Chelwood Drive in Bath.

Church Street and Chelscombe provide sheltered housing to people with support needs in the Weston area of Bath. Church Street comprises 14 one bedroom flats just off the centre of Weston Village and Chelscombe is an adjacent scheme comprising 12 one bedroom bungalows, each with a garden.   Although contracted separately Church Street and Chelscombe operate as one scheme.  The scheme has a part time scheme manager and is covered by an alarm service at other times.

There have long been problems of anti-social behaviour and vandalism in the immediate area.  This is exacerbated by the design and layout of 4 flats with an archway underneath which provides a right of way through to the High Street.  As a direct result of this the 4 flats bordering the footpath have not been let since 2003/04 and are currently boarded up.

Chelwood Drive is located in the Odd Down area to the south of Bath, comprising 46 flats and 4 bungalows.  The scheme has a full time resident scheme manager and an emergency call system is used at other times.  There is a common room for use by residents and ample parking is available.   The scheme is situated next to general needs accommodation also managed by Guinness.

3.         Brief History

The schemes were last reviewed in April 2005 by Simon Dicker of the Supporting People Team.  At this time they were found to be strategically relevant to the Supporting People programme through the promotion of independent accommodation with flexible support.  There was no evidence that anything other than housing related support was being delivered from the funding in this contract.

The schemes achieved level B in Support Planning and level C in the other 5 QAF objectives, although it was noted that the review systems for support planning were newly introduced and would benefit from streamlining.  The schemes appeared to offer good value for money compared to similar schemes both locally and nationally.

Residents spoke highly of the service provided by Guinness, but were unanimous in their dissatisfaction about the anti-social behaviour around the flats at Church Street.

4.         Monitoring Information

Chelscombe

 

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

 

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

KPI1a

100*

100*

100*

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

SPI1a

100*

100*

100*

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

SPI2a

83.4*

97.0*

98.1*

98.7

100

100

100

96.8

100

100

SPI3a

87.1*

97.8*

86.3*

94.8

84.3

91.4

100.1

107.1

92.3

107.4

SPI4a

88.5*

84.6*

100*

108.3

100

100

100

108.3

100

100



Church Street

 

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

 

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

KPI1a

n/a

n/a

n/a

100

100

90.9

100

100

100

100

SPI1a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71.4

71.4

71.4

71.4

71.4

71.4

71.4

SPI2a

n/a

n/a

n/a

96.5

100

99.2

100

100

100

100

SPI3a

n/a

n/a

n/a

94.9

84.3

91.4

100.1

107.1

92.3

107.4

SPI4a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78.6

71.4

78.6

71.4

71.4

71.4

71.4



Chelwood Drive

 

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

 

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

KPI1a

100

100

100

96.3

100

98.1

100

100

100

100

SPI1a

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

SPI2a

100

100

99.5

100

99.9

99.7

100

97.9

98.5

98.8

SPI3a

101.8

94.55

83.3

101.8

89.3

87.3

105.4

109.4

85.7

99.1

SPI4a

100

102

102

108

102

104

100

104

106

100



Key:

KPI 1a     - % of clients supported to establish independent living

SPI 1a     - % Availability

SPI 2a     - % Utilisation  (housing)

SPI 3a     - % Staffing Levels

SPI 4a     - % Turnover / Throughput

  • *Church Street figures for 2004/05 were combined with the Chelscombe return
  • Since 2005/06 monitoring returns for the two parts of the scheme have been completed separately with the 4 boarded up units at Church Street showing as unavailable (SPI1a).  This has impacted on the throughput figure (SPI4a) which is consistently low. 
  • It is recommended that these 4 units are taken out of the monitoring workbooks to give a clearer reflection of throughput at the scheme.

Destinations of users who stopped using the services

(Q1 2004/05 – Q3 2006/07

 

Church Street and Chelscombe

Chelwood Drive

Completed support programme

 

 

To independent housing

 

1

To sheltered housing

4

8

To long-term supported housing

 

1

Died

2

6

Committed Suicide

 

 

Taken into custody

 

 

To a long-stay hospital or hospice

1

 

To an acute psychiatric hospital

 

 

To a care home

 

3

To a nursing care home

 

 

To short-term supported housing

 

 

Evicted

 

 

Abandoned tenancy

 

 

Unknown/lost contact

 

 

Total long-term departures

7

19



Although the destination figures indicate that a high number of tenants are moving on to other sheltered housing the majority of these are actually internal transfers and show the movement from upper floor flats to ground floor or bungalow accommodation. 

5.         Service Capacity and Funding

 

Service

Units

Staffing

Funding

Total Hours

Support Hours

Maximum assuming 100% capacity

Actual 2005/06

Church Street and Chelscombe

22*

18

3.6

£4,393.56

£3,752.25

Chelwood Drive

50

35

7

£9,402.40

£5,404.17



*Since the 4 flats at Church Street have been unavailable since 2003/04 they have been removed from calculations.

6.         Strategic Relevance

The review found that the services provided by Guinness at Church Street & Chelscombe and Chelwood Drive fit with the local and national context of strategic relevance.  Support at both schemes is provided by scheme managers based at Chelwood Drive together with an alarm/on call system.   Overall the housing related support level is low and there is no evidence that anything other than housing related support is being delivered to residents from the funding in this contract.

The service was found to be strategically relevant to the SP programme in B&NES and meets some of the objectives set out in the SP 5 year strategy.  For example the service offers older people an opportunity for independent living whilst offering a safe and secure setting for the provision of general health, social and personal care in addition to housing related support services.

The B&NES Joint Older People’s Strategy sets out to promote the independence and well being of older people.  The service meets the key aims of providing “an expanded range of housing and care options for older people to have real choice and control about how and where they live” and “responsive services which reduce unnecessary admissions to hospital and residential and nursing care”.  It also provides a setting for the delivery of “improved health and care services in the community which enable more older people to remain independent and living at home”.

Legal/DCLG Guidance on group and type of service

Housing, care and support is an important part of Government’s wider regeneration and social inclusion agenda.  The service contributes to the wider government agenda for preventative services in relation to the strategy for Older People: Helping people sustain their tenancies and prevent homelessness.  Flexible care can enable older people to remain at home in the community with dignity.

The Green Paper – Independence, Well Being and Choice published in March 2005, set out a vision for the provision of social care which placed great emphasis on delivering a preventative approach and promoting greater independence.  It sets out a vision where “services should be person-centred, seamless and proactive.  They should support independence not dependence and allow everyone to enjoy a good quality of life”.  Many of the proposals set have been integrated into the White Paper. 

The service also meets in part the Good Practice Guide – Sheltered and Retirement Housing published by the Chartered Institute of Housing through the provision of self contained, easy to manage, non-institutional accommodation, peace of mind and help in emergencies and an alternative to residential care.

There is however a question mark over strategic demand across the sector.  There is evidence of an overprovision of sheltered housing across the Bath and North East Somerset area with vacancies in some schemes being filled by tenants with no identified support need.  An increasing number of sheltered housing residents are choosing to opt out of active support.   There is evidence to support the view that upper floor flats without lift access are unpopular and not suitable for older people.   Guinness are however able to show good progression for tenants from upper floor flats to either ground floor or bungalow accommodation and residents were confident that they would be able to move when necessary. 

There are obvious strategic relevance issues around the flats at Church Street, with 4 units out of use because of persistent anti social behaviour and vandalism.   Guinness have been working with the police to try to resolve this and there has been an increased police presence in the area, but residents had not noticed any real improvement yet. 

7.         Quality Assessment Framework (QAF) Outcomes

The objectives were assessed as follows:

QAF Objective

Self Assessed Score

Validated Score

April ‘05

Validated Score

Jan ‘07

C1.1

Needs & Risk Assessment

B

C

C

C1.2

Support Planning

B

B

B

C1.3

Security, Health & Safety

B

C

B

C1.4

Protection from Abuse

B

C

B

C1.5

Fair Access and Diversity

C

C

C

C1.6

Complaints

B

C

C*



Since the last review the scheme has improved sufficiently to have now achieved level B in three QAF standards; C1.2 support planning, C1.3 Security, Health and Safety and C1.4 Protection from Abuse.

C1.1 Needs & Risk Assessment

It was not possible to validate this at level B as there is currently no process in place for advising unsuccessful applicants of the reasons for refusal or advising them of their right to appeal a decision.allowing appeals for refusal of a nomination to an applicant.  The majority of referrals are dealt with through the Homeseekers register but the scheme does accept direct referrals and they should be given a written explanation of the outcome.

C1.2 - Support Planning

This was assessed at level B with support plans clearly linked to needs assessments and including specific outcomes for service users.  There was evidence of regular information sharing with external agencies and tenants were aware that they could ask for a review at any time.

C1.3 - Health and Safety

Policies and procedures are clear, concise and regularly updated and reviewed.  Location Managers are all trained in risk assessment and residents are given the opportunity to get involved and participate in H&S.  Out of hours emergencies are dealt with by Attendo and residents were happy with the arrangements.

C1.4 - Protection from Abuse

The service has been assessed at level B.  Staff are well trained and show a good understanding of the subject but although posters are displayed on notice boards more work is needed to further raise awareness with tenants.

C1.5 – Fair Access, Diversity and Inclusion

The service was assessed at level C in this area in line with their own assessment.  This has not changed since the last review.

C1.6 - Complaints

The organisation is working above level C in this area, but there are issues of accessibility of the policy statement as it is not written in Plain English.  

* A new complaints policy is due to be implemented in April 2007 which will bring this up to level B.

8.         Consultation

Staff and residents at both schemes were consulted as part of the review.

Staff

The Scheme Manager at Church Street and Chelscombe has only been in post for 6 weeks, but has previous experience in a similar role in another local authority area.  The Chelwood Drive Scheme Manager has been in post for 6 years and the Service Manager has been with Guinness since 2004.  All three members of staff are based in offices at Chelwood Drive.

Staff were able to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the Needs and Risk Assessment process and reported that the response from tenants is generally good.  They also had a good knowledge of policies and procedures relating to Health and Safety, Protection from Abuse and Fair Access and Diversity.  There were no unresolved complaints at the time of the review.

Staff feel that Guinness Care and Support is a good organisation to work for, and particularly like their commitment to training.  They are confident that they provide a good service to their tenants and feel that they are well supported by the organisation.

  Tenants – Church Street and Chelscombe

The residents consulted had been at the scheme for between 4 and 10 years.  They were generally happy with their accommodation, particularly those in the bungalows.  Church Street tenants commented about the lack of a lift to flats on the first floor.

Tenants like the location of the scheme close to local shops and services, but they were unanimous in their criticism of the anti-social behaviour and vandalism in the area around the archway and steps.  Two service users reported an increased presence from police community support officers in recent months but were unsure whether this has improved the situation.  Those living in the Chelscombe bungalows said they preferred to walk the long way round to avoid having to go under the archway.

There are no communal facilities at the scheme and although meetings and coffee mornings are sometimes held in the neighbouring church hall attendance is generally poor.

Tenants were happy with the service and support they receive from their Scheme Manager and had a general understanding of the support planning process. 

Tenants – Chelwood Drive

A total of 24 residents were interviewed in groups at a coffee morning.  Some had only been living at the scheme for a few months while others had been there since the scheme opened over 20 years ago.

Residents are generally satisfied with the service provided by staff.  The majority of residents were happy with the amount of support time available although one resident commented that the scheme manager no longer has time to help with filling in forms etc.   Residents also expressed concern that the on-site office has is now closed to callers but they were all aware of how to contact the Bristol office.  Those who had contacted the Bristol office were happy with the service they had received. 

Nearly all the residents consulted expressed concerns about problems caused by youngsters in the neighbouring general needs accommodation.  Guinness are aware of the problem and are trying to find a solution, but in the meantime residents have to put up with children causing a nuisance.

Overall residents were happy with the standard of accommodation, location of the scheme and access to services, but didn’t like the proximity to the general needs accommodation and the associated problems.  Two service users commented that there are no lifts to the flats above the ground floor, but were confident that they would be able to transfer to ground floor accommodation when they could no longer manage the stairs.                                                                                   

Other Stakeholders    

Consultation with the team leader of the Homeseekers Team confirmed that sheltered accommodation is automatically offered to anyone over the age of 60 regardless of their support needs. Over 50s with identified support needs will also be considered for this type of scheme.  Due to the lack of general needs accommodation it is rare than an applicant over 59 requests general needs and many feel that this will be their last move so they accept sheltered because they may need the support in the future.

She also commented that although there is a high demand for sheltered housing this is often because it is much easier to get housed in sheltered than in general needs accommodation.  Expectations of home seekers are often not met by the accommodation on offer and there are a high number of refusals because flats are too small or the location is poor e.g. too hilly or too isolated.  She also commented that although Weston is a popular area the flats at Church Street are less popular than other sheltered accommodation locally.

9.         Evidence and Risk Assessment

The anti social behaviour in the Church Street area does present a risk to the security and welfare of people living in the scheme.   Guinness have been working with the police to try to solve the problem and residents have reported an increased police presence in the area.  An options appraisal is due to be carried out on the scheme during 2007 but a number of possible solutions have been considered by the Development Team at Guinness.  These include:

  • stopping up/redirecting or closing the public right of way at night
  • outright sale – although this would just move the problem on
  • refurbishment followed by shared ownership
  • removal of the archway but retention and redevelopment the flats

Guinness’s preferred option would be to redirect the footpath as this appears to be the main root of the problem, but there is little progress on this at the moment.

There were no operational risks identified in the service delivery or organisational structure.  All policies and procedures are in place and there is a clear process for training staff in these.

10.       Value for Money

 

Weekly Unit Cost

SW Benchmark Costs

Number of Units

Upper

Lower

Church Street and Chelscombe

£3.83

£8.71

£13.95

22*

Chelwood Drive

£3.54

£8.71

£13.95

50



 

 

Cost per Support Hour

SW Benchmark Costs

Total Support Hours

Support hours per user

Upper

Lower

Church Street and Chelscombe

£23.38

£13.84

£19.22

3.6

0.16

Chelwood Drive

£25.72

£13.84

£19.22

7

0.15



* The four boarded up flats at Church Street have been excluded from calculations.

Unit costs fall well below the expected range when compared to similar schemes both regionally and nationally.  The cost per support hour however is significantly higher than regional benchmarks and clearly cannot be considered to give good value for money. 

The number of support hours per user per week equates to only about 9 minutes per user and is also considerably lower than the benchmark figures of between 0.46-0.89 hours (27-53 minutes) per user.  This would tie in with comments from one service user that the scheme manager no longer has time to help with filling in forms.  If the 4 unlet flats at Church Street had been included in the calculations it would reduce the number of support hours per user even further.

The high cost per support hour and low support hours per user is directly related to the fact that only 20% of the Scheme Manager’s time is spent on support with 80% spent on housing management tasks.  Guinness should look at this split between support and housing management and consider revising it to bring their schemes in line with others both regionally and nationally.

Value for money issues will be considered in greater detail as part of a sector review of sheltered services which is due to take place during 2007.

11.             Review Outcome / Recommendations and Impact

1.      There are clearly a number of issues relating to the 4 boarded up flats at Church Street.  Although residents like the proximity of the local shops they feel intimidated by the groups of youths who congregate under the archway.   Guinness have identified a number of possible solutions and the scheme is due to undergo an options appraisal during 2007.

2.      Feedback from residents was generally good with all reporting satisfaction with the service provided by Guinness.  Those living at Chelwood Drive and the Chelscombe bungalows also reported a high degree of satisfaction with the standard of accommodation.  All residents of Church Street and Chelscombe commented on the problems caused by local youths under the archway under the Church Street flats.  Similarly the majority of residents at Chelwood Drive were concerned about problems caused by youngsters from the neighbouring general needs accommodation.

3.      The service has now been awarded level B in 3 areas of the Quality Assessment Framework; Support Planning, Security, Health & Safety and Protection from Abuse.

                                                  i.      It was not possible to validate C1.1 Needs & Risk Assessment at level B as there is currently no process in place for advising unsuccessful applicants of the reasons for refusal or advising them of their right to appeal the decision.   Although most referrals are dealt with through the Homeseekers Register the scheme does accept direct referrals and at present they do not receive a written explanation of the decision.allowing appeals for refusal of a nomination to an applicant.  Most referrals are dealt with through the Homeseekers register but the scheme does accept direct referrals and at present they have no means of appealing an unsuccessful application.

                                                ii.      In C1.4 Protection from Abuse the service has been assessed at level B.   Staff are well trained and show a good understanding of the subject but although posters are displayed on notice boards more work is needed to further raise awareness with tenants.

                                              iii.      The organisation is working above level C in C1.6 Complaints but accessibility of the policy statement could be improved if it was written in Plain English.   A new complaints policy is due to be introduced in early April and, once this is implemented, the service will meet the criteria for level B.

It is recommended that Guinness now work towards achieving level B across all objectives.

4.      Unit costs at the scheme are well below regional and national comparators but the cost per support hour is significantly higher.  In addition, because only 20% of the Scheme Manager’s time is given to support, service users receive only approximately 9-10 minutes of support per week.  This compares to regional benchmarks of approximately 28-53 minutes.  Further investigation is needed into the apportionment of time attributed to support and housing management across all sheltered providers to ensure a consistent approach is taken.  In the mean time Guinness should investigate the split between support and housing management and consider revising it to bring their schemes in line with others both regionally and nationally.

5.      There are a number of issues over the suitability of first floor flats without lift access at both schemes.  However, utilisation rates don’t indicate any serious problems with letting these units and Guinness are able to evidence good progression of tenants from first floor flats into ground floor accommodation.  Tenants were confident that they would be able to move to ground floor flats or bungalows when necessary.

5.6.           Currently 95% of tenants living at Church Street and Chelscombe are receiving SP payments, compared with an average of 60-70% across sheltered schemes generally.  56% of Chelwood Drive residents are currently receiving SP payments.

6.7.           Performance indicator returns don’t indicate any problems with the services; however the figures are skewed by the 4 units at Church Street which have been unavailable for letting since 2003/04.  It is recommended that these units are removed from the workbooks to give a true reflection of throughput at the scheme.

The review recommends an extension of the existing contract pending the outcome of a sector review of older peoples’ services.

Supporting People Annual Contract Value                                     £13,795.96

12.       Action Plan (completed by the Provider) to address Recommendations within 28 Days