1.Report Summary

A review of the services provided by Bath Self Help Housing Association at 162 Bloomfield Road and 64-76 Dartmouth Avenue was carried out by Rebecca Potter on behalf of Bath and North East Somerset (B&NES) Supporting People Team.

The review found the services to be strategically relevant to B&NES Supporting People programme and to the B&NES Housing Strategy. The services were assessed as being relatively expensive when compared to similar services regionally.

Stakeholders view the hostels as being a valuable resource and reported that communication and partnership working is developing all the time.  They pointed out that staff at the hostels, (indeed in all of the temporary accommodation schemes), have a difficult job to encourage some service users to engage with the support provided.

Service users, (all of whom are homeless), viewed the hostels as providing a safe, comfortable place to stay whilst they awaited permanent re-housing but the majority consulted reported that they did not require formal support from staff.

The services were assessed at level C in all areas under the quality assessment framework as laid out by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM).

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. 

Dartmouth Avenue Hostel and Bloomfield Road are supported housing projects, which offer people a safe and secure space in which to live.  The accommodation at Dartmouth Avenue  provides 17 bedsit units for single people, couples or small families in cluster flats with shared kitchens. Bloomfield Road has  6 units also with shared kitchens, which can accommodate larger families with support needs. Staff provide day time week day cover with out of hours security on call and random security staff visits at night and at weekends.

Bath & North East Somerset Housing Advice Team has 100% nomination rights to both hostels and to be eligible for nomination to the scheme, the nominee must either have been assessed by the Local Authority as being homeless and in priority need or be likely to be assessed as such. 

2.1 Brief History

Bath Self Help Housing Association was founded 1983.  It was established in order to take advantage of short-life housing opportunities for single homeless people. Its roots are firmly grounded in the provision of decent homes for people who are perhaps less able to compete in the market and who often need a range of other support to help them to help themselves and live independently.

The hostels at Bloomfield Road and Dartmouth Avenue were owned and directly managed by B&NES Council until 1997 when the lease was transferred to Bath Self Help.  B&NES Housing Advice team continues to have 100% nomination rights and the hostels are used to provide supported temporary accommodation for people who have been accepted as homeless and in priority need. Both Dartmouth Avenue and Bloomfield Road underwent major refurbishment in 2002 and now provide good quality supported accommodation to 23 homeless households.

In April 2002, Bath Self Help Housing Association became a member of Somer Housing Group; all central and support services are now provided by the Group.

2.2 Monitoring Information Hostels – Dartmouth Avenue and Bloomfield Road

KPI 2 – The percentage of service users who moved on in a planned way.

A total of 74 service users moved on from the hostels in 2004-2005 and 61 did so in a planned way.  This clearly represents a positive outcome for the majority of service users.

SPI 1a – Percentage availability.

In 2004-2005 there were only 43 days in total when any one unit of accommodation was unavailable for letting because of void/maintenance work.

SPI 2a – Percentage utilisation.

In 2004-2005 the accommodation at the Hostels was let for an average of 92.41% of the time.  Units were void for an average of 8.5 days between lets, (excluding any days when the unit was unavailable because of void/maintenance work). 2005/06 Q3 - saw a drop in utilisation due to a decrease in demand.  This needs to be monitored and regularly reported back to ensure that we can make the best use of these units for our vulnerable service user groups, (ie not only statutory homeless people).

SPI 3a – Percentage staffing levels.

Frontline support cover stood at 97% for the year 2004-2005. However, according to monitoring returns, all staff time went into support and there was no staff time recorded for housing management tasks which clearly must be provided in order for the Project to run smoothly. This will also affect the cost per support hour calculation.

Monitoring information provided for 2005-2006 indicated that a proportion of staff time was spent on non-support tasks including housing management.  This information  has been used in the value for money calculations.  See below.

SPI 4a -  Percentage turnover.

The turnover was consistently high in 2004-2005.

2.3 Service Capacity and Funding

When interim contracts were originally issued in April 2003 it was envisaged that the Project would employ 3.5 FTE support staff and 1 FTE first line of management.  Currently the Project is employing fewer staff.  See above.

4. Legal / ODPM Guidance for service user groups

The ODPM has directed local authorities to avoid the use of B&B for all homeless households.  In November 2003 it stated: “By March 2004, no homeless family with children should have to live in a Bed and Breakfast hotel, except in an emergency, and even then for no more than six weeks.”

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.

6. Consultation with Stakeholders

Service Users, other stakeholders and staff were consulted during the review.

6.1 Consultation with Service Users

As part of undertaking the review, a total of seven (32%) current service users were consulted; six service users from Dartmouth Avenue and one from Bloomfield Road. Two service users were single parents and another two were expecting babies and were at the hostel with their partners. The remaining three were living alone although one regularly had his son to stay over night. Consultations took place at Dartmouth Avenue, Bloomfield Road and by telephone and were conducted jointly by Rebecca Potter, Bath & North East Somerset Supporting People Team, and Claire Chappell, Bath & North East Somerset Housing Advice Team.

6.1a Consultation Findings

• Service users reported that they had all been nominated to the hostels by Bath & North East Somerset Housing Advice Team. All had been accepted as being homeless and in priority need. Length of stay ranged from one month to just less than a year. 
• Service users reported that they had become homeless because of relationship breakdown or because they were asked to leave by parents or other family members. Six service users had spent between one and six weeks in bed and breakfast prior to placement at the hostel.
• Two service users reported that they had been placed in the hostel as homeless previously.
• All service users were satisfied with the standard of accommodation.  They reported that it is mainly clean and in good condition. One person reported that she did not like using the shared kitchen as it was not very clean. Another said a bath would be more convenient as he has children. They had had very few maintenance problems and repairs were swiftly dealt with.
• All reported that the hostels feel safe and secure, although they said that a break in took place recently at Dartmouth Avenue, (an intruder had broken in through a ground floor bedroom window).  Service users said the CCTV and entry phone system at both projects kept everyone safe.
• The hostel rules were considered reasonable and everyone reported that they were discussed at ‘sign up’.  One person reported that she had found the ‘no overnight visitors’ rule hard as she could have done with some help with her baby. Another reported that his son frequently stays overnight with the consent of the staff.
• One person reported that there was a real danger that she could be evicted for service charge arrears.  She said this had been brought to her attention by staff but that she had so far been unable to meet with them to discuss for personal reasons.
• Another was concerned that the rent account information was not accurate.  He had been sent a letter informing him that he was in arrears when this was not the case.
• Everyone reported that they had a keyworker assigned to them and four said that their assigned worker had been changed because of internal staff restructuring.  Their views on this had not been sought.
• Service users were unclear as to whether they had a formal support plan. They said their needs had been discussed soon after moving in and all felt that they either had very low support needs, (beyond the need for accommodation), or else obtained support from other agencies. On the whole they met with their support workers briefly and informally, as required, for help with things like how to use the washing machine, and benefits and grant applications. 
• Two service users reported that they met regularly with their support worker, (one fortnightly and the other monthly).  Two others reported that they had not met with their keyworker for many weeks, one because of personal circumstances, and the other because he was obtaining support from other agencies. In this case, keyworkers had not attended any joint meetings with the service user and other professionals.
• One person complained that the post did not arrive at Bloomfield Road until 2pm and that he thought it was reasonable that Bath Self Help should pay for priority delivery.  He was concerned that getting post late in the day would jeopardise his chances of successfully responding to Homeseekers bulletins.
• Everyone was hoping to move into permanent housing through the Homeseekers Register.  They reported that they had not obtained advice from keyworkers concerning move on and they would not normally discuss Homeseekers bulletins with them.  However, one person stated that his keyworker had encouraged him to consider all bulletins, despite this he reported that he will only consider the area close to where his children currently attend school.

6.2 Consultation with Staff

Consultations took place with four members of staff.  Interviews were conducted at  Dartmouth Avenue.  Rebecca Potter interviewed the Temporary Accommodation Team Leader, two Supported Housing Officers, and the Supported Housing Assistant, (SHA), on behalf of the B&NES Supporting People Team.

6.2a Consultation Findings

• Staff had a wide range of knowledge and experience in the supported housing  and related sectors, including working with homeless people in a busy direct access hostel, providing housing advice, counselling people with drug and alcohol issues and volunteering on the local soup run. All staff demonstrated a commitment to providing quality supported housing for service users 
• Staff roles and duties had very recently been changed in order to deliver support in a more efficient and streamlined way.  Previously, one supported housing officer had specifically worked with service users around tenancy sustainment, (especially rent arrears and other breaches of the licence agreement), whilst the other had provided more general housing related support.  Roles are now ‘generic’ and one member of staff expressed the view that this reorganisation would provide service users with a better service.
• Staff reported differing views regarding training opportunities with Bath Self Help. Some said that there had been very few opportunities to attend useful training whilst, others stated that they had attended recent training sessions on topics such as deaf and disability awareness and diversity issues.
• In consultations, staff demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of initial risk and needs assessments.  They reported that the risks and needs of service users have not always been systematically reviewed in the past but that they now aim to review them at least quarterly. Staff also reported that on the whole service users are unwilling to accept copies of their assessments although they are involved in the process.
• Support plans had been in place at Dartmouth Avenue and Bloomfield Road for two and a half years. The format now in use was introduced at the beginning of August 2005 and includes target outcomes with timescales.  Staff had not attended recent training in this area.
• Staff reported differing service users’ attitudes to support plans: Some staff reported that many couples and families felt that they had no housing related support needs and found the process intrusive.  Where service users have more complex needs and are receiving support from other agencies, including Probation and DHI, some staff felt that it was not appropriate to expect these people  to engage with support plans at the hostels as well. In these cases, staff do not generally take part in joint working with professionals. However, one member of staff reported that service users view support plans as a useful tool.
• Staff confirmed that support plan reviews are supposed to take place regularly, (at lease once every three months).  This had not been happening previously.
• Staff had felt unsettled by the many recent changes in procedures around support working.  However they seemed satisfied with the systems now in place and reported that they were keen to begin using the new formats etc to the benefit of service users. One member of staff reported the need to familiarise herself with the procedures for dealing with rent arrears.
• Staff reported that they saw service users around the hostels frequently and that it was on these occasions that most informal support took place. They said that in addition to this informal contact they would meet with service users once a month, once a fortnight or once a week depending on support needs, for between ten minutes to an hour, again depending on need. 
• Staff organised residents meetings regularly but they were not well attended despite the fact that food and other incentives including raffle prizes and vouchers were offered.
• Staff demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of the health and safety policies and procedures in place at the hostels.  They felt that the lone working policy works well.
• Staff were familiar with the vulnerable adults policy and protection from abuse.  However no one had attended any specific training on the topic and staff advised that this would be useful.
• Staff interviewed stated that it was rare for people from ‘other cultures’ to be placed at the hostels.  One staff member reported that they had had a lot of previous experience of working in a multicultural environment in Bristol, but generally staff felt that they lacked experience and knowledge in this area. Everyone had recently attended a theatre training session on diversity issues. There are plans in place to ensure that all Bath Self Help literature is available in accessible formats, and Bath Self Help already subscribes to Language Line.
• Staff informed the Review of a recent incident where a service user at Dartmouth Avenue reported that they had been racially abused by a neighbour, (they were uncertain which neighbour).  The incident was investigated and the complainant was moved to a vacancy at Bloomfield Road at his request. It was unclear as to what work was being done with service users to highlight Bath Self Help’s commitment to equalities and diversity.
• No formal complaints had been received about the service in the preceding twelve months. Staff said that service users sometimes verbally complain but are reluctant to put their complaints in writing, despite offers of help from staff to do this.
• Staff reported that the majority of service users successfully move on into their own independent accommodation as they are nominated to social housing through the Homeseekers Register.  However, a few people choose to move in with partners or return to family and a few people are evicted for being in breach of their licence agreement, (rent/service charge arrears or anti social behaviour).
• Staff reported other positive outcomes for service users including staying ‘clean’ on a drug treatment programme, getting into employment or training, gaining increased self esteem and a sense of empowerment.
• One member of staff also reported  that they are now beginning to see service users placed at Dartmouth Avenue for the third time.  This implies that they have become homeless repeatedly.

6.3 Consultation with Other Stakeholders

The views of the main stakeholder, Bath & North East Somerset Housing Advice Team, were sought during the course of several telephone and face-to-face interviews which were conducted by Rebecca Potter on behalf of the Bath & NE Somerset Supporting People Team.  Housing Advice has 100% nomination rights to both hostels and B&NES Council has accepted a statutory duty to provide accommodation under Part VII of Housing Act, 1996, (As amended 2002),  for the majority of service users placed.  In a small number of cases, this decision is still pending at the time that service users move in to the hostels.

It should be noted that the priority for members of the Housing Advice team is to fulfil the Council’s statutory duty and place homeless service users in good quality temporary accommodation. The ODPM has directed local authorities to avoid the use of B&B for all homeless households and at a local and national strategic level it is also essential that service users are moved from temporary accommodation into permanent re-housing as soon possible, thus freeing up temporary accommodation with support, for the use of other homeless households who may otherwise be placed in B&B.

6.3a Consultation Findings

• Stakeholders reported that the standard of accommodation at both hostels is high. However, they said that service users had on occasions complained to them about the number of stairs at Bloomfield Avenue.
• The referral process is well established and works well on the whole.  However, stakeholders stated that in some cases in the past there has been a delay between referral by the Housing Advice team and assessment/placement by Bath Self Help staff and that in their opinion this sometimes led to service users being placed or remaining in  B&B unnecessarily.
• Referrals are only occasionally refused and stakeholders reported that reasons are given and that there is an appeals process in place. Stakeholders were unsure if service users were automatically informed of the appeals process. Usually where a potential service user is refused by a particular project, staff will suggest an alternative placement at another Bath Self Help project.  E.g the hostels are unwilling to accept service users who are under 18 but Green Park Flatlets will now take a limited number of young people.
• Housing Advice and hostel staff work together with the service user to try to ensure a suitable placement and usually this works successfully.  However stakeholders reported that there are occasions when staff place service users without consulting Housing Advice staff and that sometimes service users move into the hostels without anyone informing the Housing Advice team.  This has led to B&B bookings continuing for longer than necessary.
• Stakeholders reported that there have been instances where breaches of licence agreement have been handled inconsistently by staff at the hostels. For example in the case of rent or service charge arrears, service users are not always sent warning letters or notices, nor are they always required to enter into a formal agreement to repay.
• Stakeholders reported that they are not always kept informed of the progress of service users once at the hostels, and that sometimes they only hear when there are quite serious problems, (eg high rent or service charge arrears, or anti social behaviour), which have led to formal notice to quit being served. They suggested the need for a more proactive approach to rents and the need to develop a closer working relationship with B&NES Revenues and Benefits.
• Stakeholders reported that staff at the hostels are very good at advising service users about Community Care Grants and supporting them in their efforts to equip both the temporary accommodation and their new tenancies.
• Stakeholders felt that it was important to work together with hostel staff to encourage the timely move-on of service users into permanent accommodation.
• Stakeholders reported that hostel staff sometimes coordinate support plans for service users with higher needs, at the point when they are ready to move into permanent accommodation.  Housing Associations are reluctant to re-house service users with support needs if a plan is not in place.