SUPPORTING PEOPLE SERVICE REVIEW

Bath Women’s Aid - National ID 10007129 Date: Commenced October 2004 concluded May 2005 Review Officer: Ann Robins 

2. Introduction to Agency

2.1 Brief History

Bath Women’s Aid was set up in 1976 and in 1980 relocated from its’ original site to the one it currently occupies. The aims of the organisation are to offer support, counselling, advice and temporary accommodation to women and children experiencing domestic abuse. BWA is a member of the Women’s Aid Federation of England, but not as a refuge group. This is because they employ a male playworker, so cannot adhere to the ‘women for women’ condition (services for women provided by women). This means that they do not have access to the practical support available to full members. It is very likely that this will have had an impact on the staff’s ability to keep up with best practice developments through networking and information-sharing. The male playworker is providing a positive male role model for children living at the refuge, something the staff feel strongly about and would wish to see continue.

The organisation also runs a shop at a council-owned property at Chatham Row in central Bath, selling second-hand clothing and bric-a-brac. The shop is staffed by volunteers and all the proceeds are directed into the refuge.

Bath Women's aid is situated in a large Georgian townhouse owned by the Council. It has 8 bedrooms, 5 of which have basic food and drink preparation areas. There are 2 shared bathrooms, a shared shower room and one shared living room. On the ground floor there is an office and a playroom for resident children. There is a walled garden to the rear of the property, used as a recreation area for residents and their children.

Support levels vary according to the needs of the individual and the stage of their stay at the refuge. Low level support would typically consist of signposting to other services and assistance with benefit forms. Medium level support would tend to cover all these aspects plus accompaniment to appointments with for example, solicitors, the Housing Advice team at Lewis House and the Department of Work & Pensions.

2.2 Capacity

Units:   8

Delivery Staff Hours:

3 x Refuge Worker (30 hours)

1 x Play Worker (25 hours)

The team comprises of 4 people, 3 of whom are full-time and have specific roles in addition to their generic Project Worker job description. The roles are Finance Co-ordinator, Child Worker and Refuge Co-ordinator.

The Play Worker is available to all children living in the refuge during the day. He is able to take care of and engage the children, leaving time for their mother to attend appointments or simply take a break.

Out of hours work is covered by all staff. Their home telephone numbers are displayed in the refuge for all residents to use in an emergency. Overtime is not paid, but if a member of staff has to deal with a problem for longer than half an hour, it is taken as time off in lieu.          

2.3 Monitoring Information

*Occupancy levels were affected by an error by the Revenues & Benefits Team. BWA were advised that large families could not claim for more than one room, so were being turned away. This was rectified when the issue was raised with the Supporting People team, who contacted the Revenues & Benefits team on behalf of BWA.  See Section 3 below. Occupancy continues to be affected by the ability of the refuge to accommodate larger families and those with pets.

** The Staffing figure is not reliable. Staffing levels cannot always stand at 100%. Annual leave and sickness are not reflected.

2.4 Existing Funding                                   

NOTE: The Total Cost of Service includes the salaries and on-costs for 4 workers. This includes the Playworker, the costs of which are not eligible for Supporting People grant.

4. Strategic Relevance

Supporting People 5 Year Strategy.

The Supporting People 5 Year Strategy (February 2005) states:

In the nine months to the end of September 2004, police in Bath & North East Somerset recorded exactly 1,000 incidents of domestic violence (nearly 3.7 every day).  The British Crime Survey found that just under one third of incidents were reported which confirms our view that current investment in services for this group is too low.

Services for people fleeing domestic abuse have long been recognised as a priority by the Supporting People programme.  Refuge provision in the area is limited with the current provision operating from a Georgian property which sometimes presents problems in relation to access and room size/capacity.  Early discussions have … taken place with a partner RSL with the aim of making more units of accommodation available for larger families or for men experiencing domestic abuse. 

We propose to increase current levels of investment for this group…with the aim of increasing the capacity of refuge type provision and develop a more diverse range of support options for people experiencing domestic abuse.

The Strategy has identified four key areas for development, including domestic violence. It is our aim to increase provision for these service user groups. However the extent to which this is possible depends on a number of factors including:

·        the size of our 2005/06 (and future years) allocation

·        the size of any 2005/06 (and future years) savings targets

·        the effectiveness of savings measures already taken

·        the ability to get better value for money from current investment in these areas

Children & Families Services

The Domestic Violence Social Worker within the Council’s Referral & Assessment Team reports that in 2004/05 roughly 65% of cases coming into the team were thought to have domestic abuse issues. The implementation of the Care First case-management system is expected to produce figures of up to 95% for 2005/06. This high incidence of domestic abuse issues further underlines the strategic importance of BWA.

Cross Authority Issues

The counties that used to be Avon (formerly the “CUBA” group, now known as the West of England or WoE group) have developed a joint statement, about how they intend to work together on cross authority issues. This statement includes information on the movement of Supporting People client groups across the region and shows that in 2003-04, 12 women came to the Bath & North East Somerset area from other authorities in the Group. In the same period, 15 women left Bath & North East Somerset to go to another authority in the region because of domestic violence. Whilst these figures demonstrate that the trend for movement out of Bath & North East Somerset in 2003-04 was greater than it was into the area, the out-going numbers are not significantly higher. We can conclude from this that there refuge has a significant role in the delivery of services for this client group, both locally and regionally.  The 5 Year Strategy states ‘additional local provision is unlikely to affect the pattern of movement’ across the region and supports maintenance of refuge provision at the current level in tandem with the development of a floating support service for those unable to use the refuge (larger families, men and families with pets). See also Legal/Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Guidance below.

Partnership Against Domestic Violence

The Bath & North East Somerset Partnership Against Domestic Violence (PADV) is a multi-agency group that works to reduce the incidence of and provide services for those experiencing domestic violence. BWA have recently been able to attend meetings, but a more active role is needed. The table below sets out targets, contained in the PADV action plan for 2003-04, and how BWA can be involved in their delivery.

The degree and frequency of BWA involvement is obviously partially dependent on staff availability. However, if the organisation is to reach level C on review, active involvement in these activities and with other organisations will be crucial. At present, staff from the refuge are very rarely able to attend any meetings, due to constraints on their time, though they now regularly attend PADV meetings.

Bath & North East Somerset Community Safety and Drugs Partnership Domestic Violence Strategy 2005-2008

The Bath & North East Somerset Community Safety and Drugs Partnership Domestic Violence Strategy contains the following objectives:

• To provide services and improve access to support for women, children and men survivors of domestic violence and abuse
• To improve effectiveness of legal protection to victims/survivors through civil and criminal law
• To implement programmes of prevention, including public, multi-agency, children’s and perpetrators’ education

In order to achieve these objectives the Partnership is working towards the following targets:

• To promote the delivery of accessible services of support to survivors of domestic violence and abuse
• To have joint policies and procedures across agencies in contact with victims, survivors and perpetrators, to be reviewed annually
• To deliver a programme of training or other awareness raising events across the partnership each year.

The involvement of BWA in delivery of these aims and objectives is clearly essential, through the provision of their own service, their input on the development of other services for this client-group and training for colleagues on domestic abuse issues.

Bath & North East Somerset Homelessness Strategy 2003

Domestic violence is addressed as part of the Homelessness Strategy 2003. Relevant key targets include:

• Work with RSL’s to ensure consistent policies on harassment, racial harassment and domestic abuse
• Review the Bath & North East Somerset Domestic Violence Strategy
• Develop and implement the affordable housing strategy
• Establish a new deposit bond scheme for homeless families

BWA have a role to play in the delivery of these targets and it is anticipated this will be possible under the recommended new Supporting People grant level.

Community Strategy for Bath & North East Somerset

Domestic abuse is covered under the objective ‘BE:safe’ within  ‘BE: Better for Everyone, the Community Strategy for Bath & North East Somerset 2004 and beyond’. The Strategy contains the following target relevant to domestic violence.

·        Reassure our communities and reduce the fear of crime

The strategy goes on to say that the partnership will do this by ‘Taking a wide view of how to build safer communities, including road safety, home safety and fire safety.’ By improving home security for women at risk of or actually experiencing domestic violence, levels of homelessness can be reduced.

6. Quality Assessment Framework (QAF) Outcomes

The objectives were assessed as follows:

QAF Objective                                                                                   Validated Score

C1.1 – needs and risk assessment                                                      D                                         

C1.2 – support planning                                                                           D

C 1.3 – security, health and safety                                                          D

C 1.4 – protection from abuse                                                                 D 

C 1.5 – fair access, diversity and inclusion                                           D    

C 1.6 – complaints                                                                                     D     

7. Consultation with Stakeholders

Consultation was undertaken with the following stakeholders:

• One ex-service-user
• One current service user
• The Domestic Violence Co-ordinator for Bath & North East Somerset
• In-house Housing Advice staff

7.1 Consultation Findings

Feedback from the current service-user (‘A’) was very positive. General comments covered the homely and relaxed atmosphere and the good location, décor and lay-out of the house.

Arriving roughly 7 months before the interview, she had found the referral process straightforward. The Refuge Worker had given her a rough estimate of the length of time she may have to wait for a vacancy, which enabled her to hang on with friends and family knowing she would be able to move soon. In fact, the vacancy arose quicker than anticipated and A moved in within 2 weeks. She was given good local information, particularly around schools for her 2 daughters. A felt the Needs Assessment process was good. Even though it felt like another task to be carried out at the time, on revisiting the assessment later, she was able to see the value of the exercise. A felt that support is at the right level for her. She has informal weekly sessions with a member of staff. She stated that although residents are meant to have a named key worker, she didn’t wait to see them if they weren’t in that day, but would see whichever member of staff was available. A felt that this was not a problem and said she really benefited from the catch-up sessions. Throughout her time at the refuge, A has had assistance with benefits, housing and other issues. She described the service as ‘a friendly face in a secure environment’. She went on to state that, given the number of children in the house and their recent experiences, ‘the place could have been chaos, but wasn’t’. She felt credit for this should go to the staff, who help to create a calm, safe atmosphere.  Security is not a concern for A. She mentioned the locks on the laundry and basement rooms, which provide further security should anyone gain access that way. Her only negative comments centred on the laundry facilities (only 1 washing machine and 1 dryer between 8 households); kitchen facilities (only one kitchen with 2 sets of utensils etc.) and the need for computer access for the children to do their homework. Despite the good service A felt she has received from BWA, she feels that she has been at the refuge too long. She has been sent 2 offers via Homeseekers for properties in Snow Hill and Twerton, but didn’t accept them.

The ex-service user interviewed also gave very positive feedback about the service. She was referred by Victim Support and had been able to move in almost immediately. She stayed at the refuge for between 3 and 4 months, having received good support from staff with rehousing and benefits. She found the refuge itself to be better than she had expected and the staff very helpful and empathetic. The only negative feedback given was, in common with the current resident, the lack of laundry facilities available to residents.

The Domestic Violence Co-ordinator feedback centred on concerns about the lack of management committee involvement in the organisation and the effect this had on policy and procedure and the potential difficulties this could cause. She felt that the lack of an active management committee posed considerable financial and personal risk to both the organisation and individual members of staff. This feedback was confirmed on completion of the QAF and the recommendations of this report seek to address these points.

I met with 2 Housing Advisors from the Council’s in-house Housing Advice team responsible for assessing applications from homeless applicants. The feedback they gave me was generally very positive. They felt the service provided was of a high standard and that most of the refuge residents they met were very pleased with both the building and the staff. They made the following points:

• The staff always return calls regarding referrals. However, referrals were not always easy to make, particularly in the afternoon. It is always more difficult on a Friday afternoon after 3.30 pm. The WAFE helpline was felt to be a good service, but is often engaged. Although this review does not address that service, the difficulty in contacting WAFE can make referrals even more difficult
• The location of the refuge is very well-known
• The building is too small and is usually full
• Contact between refuges is surprisingly poor. The perception is that there is very little interaction between even the local refuges
• Contact with people they have referred tends to be limited. This is because homelessness applications are processed and passed on to the Homeseekers team
• Both advisors were surprised that the refuge does not use a PO Box number for correspondence

Both advisors were enthusiastic about the suggestion of a floating support service run by BWA.

8. Evidence and Risk Assessment

As detailed above, there are considerable risks inherent in the service as it stands. If the recommendations outlined above are put in place, most importantly those addressing governance, policy and practice, there is every reason to believe that these risks will be reduced, and in a number of cases, eradicated.

9. Value for Money

Overall cost per unit per week from total revenue of service:  

Cost per unit per week:                                                        £56.98

Cost per frontline support hour:                                           £8.00 approx*

*This figure is based on total grant income. It does not include rental income or profits from the shop.

It should be noted that from the information available, there is an average shortfall of approximately £5 per room between the actual hourly cost of support and the level of Supporting People grant. Presumably, this is met from the voluntary grant received from Social & Housing Services.                                       

Regional Upper and Lower Quartile:          Lower Quartile -   £159.45

Upper Quartile -   £252.23                      

National Upper and Lower Quartile:           Lower Quartile - £172.05

Upper Quartile - £329.79                

As these figures demonstrate, BWA is providing the service at a much lower rate than others, both regionally and nationally. The impact of this is evident in the difficulties staff experience in being involved in any work that is not directly connected with residents. In terms of local profile, this is a major contributing factor to BWA’s isolation from other services. The low level of income also means that staff are not paid for the out-of-hours service they provide for residents, although they do take time off in lieu.

As can be seen from the limited analysis of the frontline support costs above, the financial systems currently in use at BWA do not allow for detailed analysis.

3 most significant non-staff costs:

Office £3,612

Central overheads - £2,937

General admin - £1,693

10. Review Outcome / Recommendations and Impact

The review recommends contract renewal at the following value:

Supporting People Annual Contract Value, commencing 1/4/05:

 Per annum, net of any inflationary uplift for 05/06:  £63,768

BWA is a key agency in Bath & North East Somerset. As such we place a very high value on the service provided to families experiencing domestic violence and would seek to support and enable the organisation to improve its’ policies and procedures. In terms of monitoring, Supporting People staff are keen to assist with the move from manual to electronic reporting. For the more complex work around governance, practice, policy and procedure, it is recommended that input and assistance from Bath & North East Somerset CVS should be sought. This, combined with a reinvigorated management committee, will ensure a wide range of skills and experience is available.

The Council is the only body funding this organisation. We need to streamline our own funding arrangements to ensure clear financial accountability. At this point the agreement for the voluntary grant (£41,506) does not contain specific outcomes, but is made for general running costs. This makes it difficult to identify non-support costs, such as the Playworker. In future, it is recommended that the grant agreement contain specific outcomes, to be negotiated between BWA’s management committee (in consultation with the staff), Housing & Supported Living, the Social Worker for domestic abuse and the Supporting People team. This will enable better accountability, a clearer intent and consistency across teams.

It is recommended that the contract with Bath Women’s Aid continues and that the value of the contract be increased by £40,000. This recommendation is made with the aim of strengthening the organisation thereby underpinning its’ ability to respond to the needs of users for the foreseeable future.

This recommendation is conditional on:

Fundamental changes in the management of the project and in working practices, all of which to be agreed and reviewed by the management committee.

Establishment of a new management committee, to include the co-option of the Domestic Violence Co-ordinator, a current or ex-service-user, a  co-opted representative from Housing & Supported Living, the Social Worker for Domestic Abuse, a Health Visitor and one co-opted staff representative. The existing members of the management committee are a valuable resource, with experience of the history and issues particular to BWA. They should be identified and asked to consider remaining on the re-formed management committee. Regular meetings to be held, in line with the terms of BWA’s constitution.

• Equalities issues being addressed in terms of staff, management committee representation and accessibility for potential users.
• The development of a floating support service proposal, in partnership with an RSL. To include support to women wishing to remain in their homes, those living in rural areas of Bath & North East Somerset and a self-contained unit of accommodation.
• All the above to be achieved within 6 months of this report and to result in an achievement of QAF Level C on review at the end of that period

It is recommended that work around the action plan for BWA is facilitated by Bath & North East Somerset CVS. They have extensive experience of constitutional issues and can offer practical assistance with re-establishing the management committee, equalities issues and the development of new policies and procedures.

11. Action Plan

As suggested above, it is recommended that Bath & North East Somerset CVS be asked to facilitate the development of an action plan, with staff and management committee representatives. This should be started within a month of this report, subject to CVS availability.