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