Supporting People Service Review
Service: Redfield Road. Service Address: 52-54 Redfield Road,
Midsomer Norton. Service Provider: Swallow. Date: 29th April 2004.
Review Officer: Simon Dicker on behalf of Bath & NE Somerset
Supporting People Team.
1.
Introduction
52-54 Redfield Road are two properties with adjoining upstairs,
creating 5 individual flats for people with Learning Difficulties,
plus a room for staff resources. The property is owned by Bristol
Churches Housing Association, and residents have licence
agreements.
The service is funded by a 50/50 split between SP grant and
social services.
At time of writing the support service is seeking registration
from the National Care Standards Commission as a domiciliary care
provider.
2. Assessment
of Strategic Relevance to Supporting People
The overall funding split (2003/4) is as follows:
SP
GRANT
£68,098.12 per annum
(51 %)
SOCIAL SERVICES COMM.
CARE
£66,542 per
annum
(49 %)
TOTAL
£134,640.12 per annum
The service is highly relevant to Valuing People, but its
overall provision of Housing Related Support needs to be seen
inside its wider context as a provider of social care.
At time of review, a dialogue was underway with CSCI with regard
to future registration as a provider of domiciliary care.
There has been no concern expressed of any need for the premises
to become registered.
3. Desktop
Review of Quality and Performance
Performance monitoring data for the first three reporting
periods is as follows:
Period
Availability
Occupancy
Support
1st
Qtr
100%
100%
100.8%
2ndQtr
100%
100%
100.4%
3rd
Qtr
100%
100%
99.8%
The Scores for the Quality Assessment Framework were as
follows:
Self Assessed
Validated
Needs Assessment and Support
Planning
A
B
Fair Access, Diversity and
Inclusion
A
B
Protection from
Abuse
A
A
Security, Health and
Safety
A
A
There was considerable evidence of good practice and service
user inclusion in the running of the service. It appears likely
that the service has potential to achieve A’s at all levels at next
review, with further work in some areas.
4. Further
evidence and Risk Assessment
The service provides support to people in their own tenancies.
Consultation with clients and staff suggests there are no move on
plans for anyone, with the service operating as a “home for life”
as far as is practicable. Tenants all have historical links with
the area, and moving in to the scheme was for some people an
important transition from living with their families.
The service provided by Swallow was assessed as good quality
with a progressive ethos. There was clearly a great deal of pride
amongst some members of Swallow both at their own achievements in
Independent Living and also their contribution to the organisation,
with presence on the Management Committee, and at last years
independently facilitated evaluation day. The results of this have
tried to be fed back through accessible format to the members who
had taken part.Four service users were consulted during the review,
and none raised any constructive feedback about Swallow, choosing
to give broader feedback about Bath and NE Somerset Council.
Reasonable efforts to involve members in formulation and review
of policies were evidenced by a pragmatic but consistent approach
to user involvement.
5. Outcome of the Review
The review concludes that there are no operational concerns over
the quality and performance of the service, but that there is an
argument that 50% of overall funding is too a high a percentage in
comparison to the split between Housing Related Support and Social
Care, based on activities recorded in support plans.
However any withdrawal of funding from the service would need to
be replaced with equivalent monies from social services.
It is a recommendation the service is funded at 20% of total
revenue from Supporting People Grant, to be withdrawn in a planned
transition to social services at the following rate:
2005/6
40% SP GRANT 60% SOCIAL SERVICES
2006/7
30% SP GRANT 70% SOCIAL
SERVICES
2007/8
20% SP GRANT 80% SOCIAL
SERVICES
This will achieve a more appropriate funding split, implemented
at a manageable rate without risk of jeopardising the service.
ACTION PLAN FOR 3 YEAR CONTRACT RENEWAL
1. The funding
recommendations need to be considered by the Commissioning Body, in
terms of developing a future service strategy for this client
group. There was no evidence found during the review that the
service could continue at present capacity with any overall
reduction in income.
2. Bev Craney
and Simon Dicker to meet with regard to further development of
support plans, with a view to involving other LD service providers
at a later date to develop a model of best practice for the
sector.
3. Kay Rudge and
Simon Dicker to meet to discuss development of equalities targets
in regard of Fair Access, Diversity and Inclusion, and to access
the Bath and NE Somerset Equalities Team for feedback on developing
a model of best practice for the LD sector.
