Supporting People Service Review

Service: Rackfield House. Service Address: Rackfield Place, Lower Bristol Road, Bath, BA2 2HD. Service ID Number 10016. Service Provider: Solon South West Housing Association. Service Provider Address: 1 Newfoundland Court, Newfoundland Street, Bristol, BS2 9AP. National ID Number: 10001341. Date: August 2005. Review Officer: Rebecca Potter on behalf of Bath & NE Somerset Supporting People Team.

3. Are the Services Strategically Relevant

The review found that the service provided by Solon South West Housing Association at Rackfield House fits with the local and national context of strategic relevance. The 20 beds provided at Rackfield House provide a valuable resource for single people who have low support needs and who are in housing need. The provider has recently begun to formalise links with other agencies, including the Prolific Offender Scheme and Julian House and it aims to continue development work to formalise arrangements for referrals through mental health services. Rackfield House supports service users to develop their skills to live independently in their own accommodation. The review found that the services did not include the provision of general health, social or personal care.

The B&NES Supporting People Five Year Strategy has a number of strategic objectives in addition to specific aims for individual service user groups.  In the context of this review Rackfield House is able to demonstrate that its services meet a number of strategic objectives and service user aims.

Objective 4 – Decrease Levels of homelessness through the provision of preventative services. The support provided at Rackfield House will equip service users, with the skills required for independent living and tenancy sustainment, thus making repeat homelessness less likely in the future.

Objective 6 – Providing services which help to promote the health, safety and well being of individuals and of the wider community.  The provider has recently set up a formal joint working partnership with the Avon and Somerset Prolific Offender Scheme and has recently housed service users subject to Drug Treatment and Testing Orders, (DTTO).

Objective 8 – Improving the provision of services for people who may be hard to reach or who are socially excluded.  service users at Rackfield House include those who have mental health problems, a history of rough sleeping and past drug and alcohol problems.

Referral data indicates that only a small proportion of referrals to Rackfield House are accepted. Staff reported that this was due to the reduction in turnover of service users since the implementation of choice base letting:  In the first quarter of 2005/2006, 11% of referrals (2 out of 22) were accepted.  Of the 20 referrals refused 55% were assessed as either having no support needs, had already been housed, had gone away or did not attend interviews. A further 25% were assessed as having too high support needs, (active drug and alcohol issues or issues with violence) One applicant was refused on the grounds of having high mental health support needs and another had unaddressed rent arrears from a former tenancy.

Demand for the service clearly outstrips supply and this has been exacerbated recently by the fact that service users are not moving on as rapidly as they have done in the past. (see below).  Given the fact that it is a limited resource (there are only 20 units of accommodation), it is crucial that the provider continues to house service users who require more than just a roof over their head, and to emphasise the need for service users to engage at the point of referral and interview.  This will ensure that the project continues to play a strategic role in Bath and North East Somerset. 

4. Legal / ODPM Guidance for Service User Groups

Following publication of the ODPM’s five year plan, Sustainable Communities: Homes for All, in March 2005 the government published its’ strategy for tackling homelessness. In Settled Homes: Changing lives, the government have acknowledged the link between homelessness prevention and the provision of support. The overall aim of the strategy is to reduce the numbers living in temporary accommodation by 2010. The specific aims are to expand housing opportunities for all including those who need additional support and/or are disadvantaged.  Another aim is to reduce homelessness by offering range of preventative measures.  Rackfield House is a low support project which has been successful in the past in enabling service users to move on into independent accommodation in a planned way. 

Referral data and feedback from service users demonstrates that the majority of service users access Rackfield House at a time when they are either homeless, threatened with homelessness, or in insecure accommodation.  These service users are therefore enabled to resolve their housing crises and some may avoid having to present as homeless at Bath & North East Somerset Council.

Whilst at Rackfield House service users are supported to gain the independent living skills and overcome other difficulties in order to be ready to successfully move on into independent tenancies within two years.

6. Consultation with Stakeholders

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

6.1 Consultation with Service Users

A total of four service users (ie 20% of current users) were interviewed individually at Rackfield House by Rebecca Potter on behalf of Bath and North East Somerset Council’s Supporting people Team

6.1a Consultation Findings

• Half the service users interviewed were referred by B&NES Housing Advice Team, another was referred by Julian House and the other by DHI. Three of the service users were homeless and the other was threatened with homelessness.  One of the service user’s did not have a local connection to Bath & North East Somerset.
• All were satisfied with the standard of accommodation.  The garden in particular was appreciated.  service users reported that repairs were always dealt with swiftly and there were few maintenance problems in general. The ‘out of town’ location of Rackfield House was seen as an advantage.
• Service users had not had cause to complain about the service they have received, although two service users reported that they had complained about the conduct of other service users and their visitors. Both stated that they were satisfied with how staff handled the complaints.
• All service users reported that they had a named keyworker whom  they met with regularly.  One service user met once a week for about an hour, another met once every one to two weeks, again for an hour. Two other service users one of whom works, reported that they met with their keyworker as and when required but at least once a month.
• All service users reported that they have support plans.  One service user reported that his support plan was reviewed every 3 weeks whilst others implied that they were reviewed on more of an ad hoc basis.  service users said that they found the plans very useful in setting targets/aims. One service user stated that his support plan ‘has focused my mind on what I’ve got to do for myself to try to help myself’.  Another service user stated that her support plan included targets and that it was ‘extremely useful’.
• Service users reported a variety of positive outcomes as a result of the stability and support provided at Rackfield House including accessing benefits and education, volunteering, and complying with a DTTO.
• Of those who participated in the consultation, service users had been at Rackfield for periods ranging from six to fourteen months. However staff reported that at least three service users had been resident at Rackfield House for more than two years, whilst a further six had been resident for more than a year.
• Three service users reported that they had had bad experiences renting in the private sector.  They said that it was expensive and lacked security of tenure.  All three are hoping to remain at Rackfield House until they are offered social housing through the Homeseekers Register.  They said that keyworkers had not discussed  private rented as a realistic housing option.  One service user reported that she would not rule out private rented but that she was not yet ready to move. Three service users believed that they would need very little help once in independent accommodation as they had all lived independently in the past.  The fourth user thought he would require some help setting up home and putting direct debits in place to pay bills etc.

6.2 Consultation with Staff

All staff based at Rackfield House were consulted by Rebecca Potter as part of the Review, including the two Housing Support Workers, and the Scheme Manager. In addition consultations were held with the Supported Housing Officer, who oversees Rackfield House and Solon’s other supported housing projects  and is based at Solon SW HA’s head office in Bristol.

6.2a Consultation Findings

• The staff had a broad range of knowledge, skills and experience between them.  Solon SW HA operates a thorough induction programme for new staff which includes core training in areas including First Aid, working with vulnerable adults, Needs and Support Planning, Equal Opportunities and Housing Benefit. Four of the five staff had been at Solon/ Rackfield for several years demonstrating that rates of staff retention by the organisation are very good.
• Staff reported that there were good opportunities to attend training and that Solon positively encourages this. 
• All staff interviewed demonstrated a good knowledge of the Needs and Risk Assessment and Support Plan process and all had attended or were booked to attend formal training in this.  Staff reported that support plans had existed at Rackfield House for many years but that they had become more outcome focused since the introduction of Supporting People. Currently, 4 service users (ie 20%) are not engaging with the support offered.
• Caseloads are unequal at present but staff reported that they will even out in time as service users are transferred to the new Housing Support Workers.  They will eventually work with ten service users each.
• There is a problem with ‘silt up’ ie service users are remaining at Rackfield House beyond the expected two years and those who are ready to move on sooner are not doing so. This is despite the fact that the provider has secured two places per year through the Homeseekers Assisted Move on Scheme (AMOS), and two direct lets through Knightstone Housing Association. Three service users have been at Rackfield House for over two years whilst six have been living there for over one year.  Staff reported that this was caused by a combination of factors including the general shortage of one bed accommodation becoming available in the social housing sector and the fact that most service users are assessed as having low priority on the Homeseekers Register.  An additional factor is that service users do not always choose to respond to bulletins informing them about vacant properties through the Homeseekers Register.
• At the time of the Review, staff reported that they had done limited work with service users around securing move on accommodation in the private rented sector although it was acknowledged that this is now required. Staff reported that private rented accommodation was perceived by service users as being expensive and insecure.
• Staff reported that four current service users are not engaging with their keyworker.

6.3 Consultation with Other Stakeholders

The views of other stakeholders, including staff from Bath Churches Housing Association, the Avon and Somerset Probation Service, Drugs and Homelessness  Initiative (DHI) (Prolific Offenders Scheme), and the Housing Advice Team were sought during the course of several face-to-face and telephone interviews. Interviews were conducted by Rebecca Potter on behalf of the Bath & NE Somerset Supporting People Team.

6.3a Consultation Findings

• Stakeholders reported that there is a high demand for supported housing at Rackfield House.
• Stakeholders would like to be informed when vacancies arise.  There was the perception amongst some that voids are not always filled promptly.
• Stakeholders were aware of the referral criteria and reported that the form was easy to complete. Staff usually kept them informed of the progress of referrals and usually copied them into the decision regarding acceptance/refusal. One Stakeholder reported that they were not always given the reasons for refusal in writing.
• One stakeholder stated that the insistence on potential service users having to be clean from street drugs for at least 3 months was problematic and excluded some service users at a time when they are particularly vulnerable.
• One stakeholder reported that several potential service users were put off Rackfield House because they could not take their dogs. However, for health and safety reasons, this is a standard policy for shared accommodation.
• Stakeholders reported that the standard of accommodation at Rackfield House is high, and that it is pleasantly situated.  The shared houses feel very homely and the general atmosphere is secure and peaceful.
• Stakeholders felt that more work could be done by support workers around move on including encouraging service users to consider all their housing options, (both social and private rented).
• Stakeholders reported that Rackfield House makes a positive contribution towards community safety by providing stable supported accommodation for a number of service users who have long histories of offending behaviour and issues around drugs and alcohol.

9. Review Outcome / Recommendations and Impact

1.         The level of preparation and planning for the review was thorough and comprehensive.  Evidence was made accessible to the SP Review Team and  staff were on hand to provide additional information as required.  The Quality Assessment Framework was clearly being used as a self assessment tool.

2.         The review thoroughly validated QAF objectives C1.1 to C1.5 at level C, and C1.6 at Level B.  It is a recommendation that the annual self assessment QAF be submit in September 06 to evidence attainment of a level B across all six core objectives.

3.         The Review found that management and frontline staff at Rackfield House are well trained, skilled and experienced and are committed to delivering the best possible service for its users.  Solon SW HA appears to have a strong commitment to ensuring that staff are offered useful training and professional development opportunities.  

4.         In line with ODPM guidance, it is a recommendation that Rackfield House identify 3 supplementary QAF objectives before Dec 05 that complement the ongoing service monitoring and evaluation and report progress on these in the annual self assessment

5.         With reference to achieving better value for money and continued strategic relevance, it is recommended that funding remains at current levels on condition that Rackfield House accepts a greater proportions of service users  who are deemed to have higher support needs. We would expect these service users to be referred/nominated by mental health services, Probation and the Housing Advice Team in B&NES. We require the Provider to set targets which are challenging yet sustainable within the current capacity of the project, and to agree formal protocols with the above services to this end.  The Review found that Rackfield House has already begun this work for which it is to be commended; formal joint working protocols are already in place with Julian House, (Bath Churches Housing Association), and the Avon and Somerset Prolific Offender Scheme.

6.         Consultations with staff indicated that some service users are not engaging with the support offered and that often support/keyworking sessions occur in an ad hoc, rather than a structured way.  The provider needs to develop strategies for ensuring that all service users participate and engage in the support plan and review process. 

7.         Rackfield House has traditionally catered for white men and client record data indicates that this group still accounts for the majority of service users although recently Rackfield House  has accepted more women and people from BOME groups. With reference to fair access, diversity and inclusion, the Review found that there is an Action Plan in place which aims to address this issue and to ensure that service users at Rackfield House represent all sectors of the community. We now require the provider to report progress to date in this area and to advise on how it intends to continue to take this work forward.

8.         The Review found that service users are frequently remaining at Rackfield House beyond the time when they are ready to move on into independent accommodation.  Three service users had been at Rackfield House for more than two years and a further six had lived there for more than one year. There are various reasons for this ‘silt up’ including the lack of one bedroom properties available through the Homeseekers Register (HR), and the reluctance of service users to consider renting in the private sector. The challenge for the Provider is to work more closely both with service users and housing providers in the B&NES area, (including private landlords), to ensure that service users can secure properties to enable timely move on to independent accommodation.

9.         Between July 2004 and the end of March 2005 a total of twelve service users left Rackfield House.  Of these, seven moved on in a planned way.  This represents 58% of those who moved on. The challenge for the Provider is to increase both of these totals. 

10.       The stipulation that in all cases applicants with drug and/or alcohol issues have to have been abstinent in the community for three months can exclude potential service users at a time when they are particularly vulnerable.  It is recommended that Rackfield House relaxes this requirement to one month’s abstinence.

11.       The Provider indicated that it planned to offer a resettlement service for service users who move on.  Consultations with service users indicated that at least some felt they would require help with resettlement. It is a recommendation that more detailed information regarding this service be provided, together with a delivery plan.

12.       This report is a public document and will be placed on the Bath and North East Somerset Website.  Rackfield House must share the Review recommendations and outcomes with Service Users and complete an Action Plan by October 2005.    

10. Action Plan (completed by the Provider) to address points 1 – 12 above